socialism

Alright, considering this is the final round of the debate, what I am going to do is provide a summary of the debate at hand after providing a rebuttal to my opponent's case, and I wil give the judges clear reasons as to why they should vote for me for the better argumentation point on this ballot. Rebuttal 1: Socialism is the communal ownership of businesses across a country while still applying free market principles whereas communism is the communal ownership while applying a political principle where the regulation thereof is centralized by a government. There are so many differences and so many similarities between socialism and communism that it is almost impossible to discern them as a product of one another. If it were somehow possible, if anything, communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism, and my opponent is trying to bring up an example of how communism is an example of socialism, this is pretty much a gift for the CON considering that I have already explained (and my opponent doesn't refute this point) that communism has not worked anywhere in the world, especially not in the USSR. In fact, the USSR is the most notorious example how communism has failed to function especially when the downfall came in 1989. Rebuttal 2: If you don't put oil in your car, your car is not going to work. If you don't install a switch to flush on a toilet, a toilet is not going to work. Although these seem like far-fetched examples, they correctly show the exact same thing with capitalism : if it is not done correctly and practiced correctly, it is not going to work. Like I said, economics is a game, and we can win only if we are skilled at playing it. The Great Depression and other economic downturns in our country resulted from poor practices of our mixed market; what my opponent implies, however, is that it was the actual system itself that doesn't work: a broken gear in a machine rather than the actual person operating the machine not operating it correctly, but I've explained why this is not true for capitalism and our mixed market, but is actually true for communism. Countries have applied it correctly, as far as many are concerned, and it still hasn't functioned. Rebuttal 3: Here, my opponent makes a strawman argument. I've said before how I completely acknowledge how John Locke has been such a strong basis for the Constitution and for the idealism of the country today, and I am in accord with all of the principles listed within The Two Treatises of Government. However, what I am saying is that my opponent hasn't proved how our mixed economy has not been able to uphold government's end of the contract. I've shown you examples of the low unemployment rates from Texas and Louisiana as a result of proper functioning of the mixed market, which aids to the people. Reasons for voting CON: So it's almost painfully obvious that the vote should go to the CON in this debate. The judge's decision for voting will split between whether he/she wants to vote for the case that has ample amounts of evidence and logical conclusions or a paucity of evidence or research and poorly-constructed conclusion, and if a judge's decision is the first case, then the vote will obviously go to the CON. My opponent reaches these very poor conclusions, including that OWS is beyond a shadow of a doubt going to take down our mixed market, that the mixed market has not done anything to help people, and that capitalistic principles absolutely do not work. I have provided to you examples of how our mixed market has worked, shown you that any failures in our system are mostly as a result of how people work with them rather than how it is set up, and I respond to all of my opponent's arguments while my opponent drops many of my own.