Resolved: North Korea should reunite with South Korea

There are no "pure" capitalistic states, and no "pure" socialist states, and no "pure" communist states. The communist state of N. Korea has a large "totalitarian" government shadow looming over its corpse. So, when my opponent argues that they should create a socialist state, he is talking about a MOSTLY socialist state (which America is not, and Germany is not, and Britain is not). Even the country of Germany is getting rid of socialist programs like their national health care now, with the help of it's new chancellor. Countries with a majority of capitalistic standards have higher standards of living for their citizens. Socialism and Communism, again, do not deal with the human condition. My opponent had said: "Moreover, my opponent also seems to be mistaking the fact that socialism doesn't mean taking away incentives to work. The free market is still existent, but not 100% in use. the government still runs the important stuff, but the free market is still there." That is not socialism. Def of socialism: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Main Entry: soï¿½cialï¿½ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Note, that it says it is a system between Capitalism and Communism, not a mix of the two. And note how it says that there is no "free market" but everything is owned by the government. What my opponent was describing is a mix between Capitalism and Socialism. My opponent has also pointed out that China has the "best economy" in Asia, but failed to state how working standards are in China. My opponent also failed to recognize that China is wanting, and slowly trying, to move its economy to Capitalism. (An article on this phenomenon: http://www.rieti.go.jp...) America topping the world in ranking doesn't come as a surprise as it is a *mostly* capitalistic society. But when my opponent mentioned free school he was wrong. Socialism makes people (all citizens) pay a tax for education (and all children are, by law, suppose to go to school until a certain age). Therefore, that's not "free" school but a government instituted standard that all citizens pay for. Now college in America is more capitalistic. The individual pays if the individual wishes to go. The system there works better as they don't have the problems of teacher shortage, teacher pay, and school funding like elementary, middle, and high schools in America. Private colleges have the best professors, the best education provided (because the professors get incentives for working there… higher pay, help in advancement of their research with better equipment, etc). The list could go on and on about how the system offers better education. If there were more private colleges, there would also be more competition, and lower prices because of this competition. In Socialism, there is no real incentive to strive, merely to maintain the functional status quo. America's economy is not like this. Standard of living, of course, comes before profit. Capitalism supplies this. As for our troops: The DMZ zone is there specifically to stop border incursions. The fact the US led forces are not fighting means it is working. Remove the DMZ and watch N. Korea reinstate expansion programs. Can anyone say Israel and Palestine? The notion that removal of a border and calling it "Korea" will usher in socialist paradise and their embracing and mixing of their two systems, is absurd. At its most basic, S. Korea is a developed Asian nation. It's economy is secure, and it's standard of living high. N. Korea, to name a very few of it's problems, is a struggling nation, it has trouble feeding its population, and it has trouble providing basic human services. It is on par with, say, Indonesia. What this means is that border removal would, assuming a centralized government, mean that the S. Korean infrastructure props up N. Korea, you essentially create a mass class system discrepancy between North and South. I should also point out that N. Korea is not a communist nation but a Dictatorship. Majority Dictatorship Government + Majority Capitalism Government = corruption and oligarchy underlying the government (i.e. Russia present)...not socialist "paradise". I'm going to take this chance to show my 1st steps again for my opponent, because from his copy-cat comments, it seemed he ignored to give me credit for it: 1. Aid the opposition inside N. Korea by encouraging the people to peacefully strike against the government (such like what happened in Poland with the Union workers striking against communistic economic laws and winning). If that doesn't work (and gets violent), aid them in a civil war against their government. My opponent said, and I quote: "I do not think that any type of war would be a good way to solve the problem of unionization of the Korean Peninsula. The best way is to continue diplomatic talks of the two countries and to have the United States play a small part by continuing to play a small part in lowering it's isolationist policy." I never said that they should have to go to war. I said that if it is needed, if the strikes do not work, a civil war will be the best thing against it's corrupt government. My opponent mentioned showing the isolated country parts of western society. What my opponent must realize is that when the people start learning what they are being deprived of, they will rebel. The leader knows what he is doing when he isolates them. My opponent accused me of, quote: "My opponents plan for this debate is wrong due to the fact that: 1) She is in favor of linking the two countries together. She wants to aid civil war and "peaceful" protests against the governments, but this can only end like the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia where Nicholas II and his family was brutally killed! THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO UNITING THE KOREAN PENINSULA!"" I am in the fault for wanting the countries linked together? I believe my opponent is advocating the same thing when he talks about uniting the countries under socialism. And if it weren't for the revolution in Russia… I am puzzled as to why my opponent considers the October Revolution a bad thing? Info: http://en.wikipedia.org... To quote his next point: "2) If the US and NATO countries aid refugees, then the union of North and South will occur because the people will still be going and immigrating towards it. And thus, My honorable opponent's point falls." How does my opponent go from critiquing me in wanting to join the two countries to saying my point fails because the two countries will be united? Maybe he needs to clarify. Does my opponent know that the steps are to eventually unite the countries? And my opponents final "step" quoted: "3) Finally, she advocates tat the countries should reunite under capitalism. She is agreeing to the resolution and thus upholds my side of the debate." I do not hold to his side of the debate because I do not agree with his first 3 points. One, he said that our troops shouldn't be there. I disagreed to this. Two, he said that the countries should unite under Socialism. I disagreed to this. And three, he mentioned that this socialism would resolve the 6 party talks, which my arguments can explain for themselves that joining the countries under S. Korea's type of government would nullify. I do not agree with him.