Capitalism in practice does more good than harm

As per the rules of this debate, I will not offer any more arguments or defend my own. However, I did say in the last speech that I would post author qualifications or full text from the quote if they should come into contest. AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS: My opponent makes out my authors to be some kind of crack-head Marxists. This is simply untrue, all of my authors are well respected in their area of discourse. /// Marxism /// Just because someone is a Marxist doesn't make them unreliable authors. Nothing in the rules prevented you from citing capitalism authors, they are just as valid. Thus simply saying my authors are unreliable because they are Marxist is a blatant ad-hominem. /// Ellen Meiksins Wood /// "Wood received a B.A. in Slavic languages from the University of California, Berkeley in 1962 and subsequently entered the graduate program in political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, from which she received the Ph.D. in 1970. From 1967 to 1996, she taught political science at Glendon College, York University in Toronto, Canada." A quick google scholars search shows she has posted many articles even in peer-reviewed (not socialistic/marxist) journals. http://scholar.google.com... /// Istvan Meszaros /// "Istvï¿½n Mï¿½szï¿½ros is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Sussex. He held the Chair of Philosophy at Sussex for fifteen years and was earlier Professor of Philosophy and Social Science for four years at York University." Again, many articles in peer-reviewed journals http://scholar.google.com... /// Chris Harmen /// Again, articles... http://scholar.google.com... A quick google, google scholars, or wikipedia search on any of my authors reveals the same things. Thus, any of his attacks that are simply "his author is bad" should be made invalid. RULES: Again, I cannot post any more arguments, but before everyone votes, I would like to remind everyone of the rules while they look over arguments. *All claims without evidence from credible sources are assumed to be invalid. *All advantages/disadvantges claimed after each side's first speech are assumed to be invalid. *No alternative for capitalism will come into play in this debate. Providing/asking for/advocating for or against an alternative is a non-voting issue. I would especially like to point out the third rule. I am not advocating any alternative. My opponent continually compares capitalistic nations with communist ones. I am not advocating communism. Saying that capitalism is better than communism is not refuting any of my points. IMPACT CALCULUS: /// Con: Capitalism is exclusive with all other economic systems /// /// Con: Capitalism causes human extinction(/war) /// My opponent only argues that it has not happened yet. That doesn't mean it will not happen, not really an attack at all. Flow this through the round. /// Con: Capitalism hurts democracy VS Pro: Capitalism does not have to be "pure" to work well /// He never really attacked my point that it hurts democracy, simply says "Yes, that confirms my advantage". But how does it support the advantages "Capitalism does not have to be 'pure' to work well"? Worker's councils are a perfect example of how a non-capitalist system works with democracy. Since he agrees with my point, flow through that round that "capitalism hurts democracy". /// Con: Capitalism causes poverty VS Pro: Capitalism increases the overall wealth of a society /// It is obvious that my disadvantage outweighs his advantage. Simply look at the arguments presented and determine for yourself which are more valid. /// Pro: Property Rights /// See: Worker's Councils /// Pro: Capitalism can provide relative economic prosperity even when implemented under authoritarian rule. /// I've refuted this without any credible defense from my opponent, don't flow this through the round. /// Pro: capitalism conforms to the reality of inviolable economic laws /// While I believe I have refuted this, I think my disads outweigh on this. I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate, but also remind him to (for the most part) not post any new arguments in the next round. Using old arguments, and argumentation in impact calculus is fine (unless you REALLY want to argue on author qualifications).