Socialism

The reason why I have a problem with someone kicking someone off of land, even though I am against private property, is because it can harm the other person. If there is no food and resources left in an area they are kicked off to, they essentialy starve now. I don't consider private property a right, but I consider a right to life a right, and being kicked off of land is a violation of the right to life if there is no alternative land which has food to live off of.Working for an EmployerYes, I didn't say we had inflation during that time, didn't I say there was deflation? I thought I did, maybe I didn't. Either way, I don't disagree with you here.Someone earning more(instead of splitting it more evenly) does indeed harm another person. Someone who has much more money than another has more power, more purchasing power, than those who don't. Since poor earn less, they can't afford things that would help them, such as healthcare, an accountant, lawyers, etc. The rich can afford all this, and because the poor are not given more money from the employer to afford these things, their standard of living goes down. They were part of the capitalist model, this was examining the urban households, not the rural ones. And it wasn't just in 1869, even before Lincoln the wages were terrible[1] and not only that, but so were work hours, working conditions, etc.ExamplesMy opponent is just trying to make it seem like the improvement in the economy of Yugoslavia is nothing to look at. That's not true, because there are hundreds of countries that struggle today, even with capitalism, to even improve their economy by doubling small numbers. Almost no countries at the same level as Yugoslavia even get the progress that Yugoslavia has had. There are only a few who had as good or better. While there were emigrants out of Yugoslavia, there were also hundreds of thousands immigrants to Yugoslavia moving there for a better life [2] And the picture my opponent used is deceiving since it probably is not comparing the best of Yugoslavia to the best of Switzerland. It's likely comparing the worst condition in Yugoslavia to the best of Switzerland. Both countries likely have very poor people and very wealthy people.Why I believe I wonI believe I won this debate because I provided reasons why Capitalism is immoral, and how it leads to situations like before where segregation happened, and many discriminated against other people. My opponent completely ignored this and seems to have accepted this argument. My opponent also did not really ever argue against why workers should not control businesses. They never refuted my claims about cooperatives. While my opponent did attack my examples of socialism, even if they were failures(which they weren't since they progressed) they are merely instituting a specific type of socialism and there are many other types of socialism that can be implemented. My opponent never addressed a socialism in which an economy is primarily controlled by cooperatives. This has never happened before, so I didn't provide any examples of it, but cooperatives do in fact do well, as I pointed out in my argument. My opponent has had multiple cases of not providing any evidence for their claims, while I have only provided evidence for my claims, thus I believe I won this debate. Examples of claims that my opponent made without evidence: Claiming Yugoslavia had a GDP/capita of only 5,000, Bolivia's oil accounting for 45% of their exports, India's GDP growth rate, that wages have been going up under and due to Capitalism until 1971, That Lincoln's policies lead to an inflated money supply, and much more. It would seem majority of my opponent's claims were unsupported by any sources of evidence that they offered, and the ones they did offer were not scientific studies. Several of the sources I provided were scientific studies. I believe it should be clear for whom voters should vote for.Sources:[1] https://ecolaii.wordpress.com...;[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...