Capitalism (Pro) VS. Socialism (Con)

Again, I thank Darth for his arguments. Judges, please don"t deduct points from spelling because of my apostrophes. All of them end up turning into quote signs for some reason. Also, I will most likely just refute my opponents R2 points, not his R3, for the sake of space and time. "Humanity as a whole is incredibly greedy. We are members of a species that wants to get as many materialistic goods as possible. This is natural. Capitalism, unlike socialism understands and accepts this. Capitalism is about the economic growth of each person, they have to work get keep their income and luxuries. If people are lazy, then they do not get as much, or none. Saying that a lazy person should have the same or greater importance and income as a hard-working man is simply unfair to hardworking men and women who grow the economy." Okay I will break this down into a few parts. Humanity as a whole is incredibly greedy. We are members of a species that wants to get as many materialistic goods as possible. This is natural. Capitalism, unlike socialism understands and accepts this. Capitalism is about the economic growth of each person, they have to work get keep their income and luxuries. Yet this claimed "natural greed" has been festered and has grown. Because of this system of money and how the more money you make the better you are, people realize that this natural greed can be geared towards money. Yet in a socialist society, were it doesn"t matter how much money you make, there will be greed, but not towards money, because it isn"t something of value, or of as much worth in that society. So, in a sense, it"s not capitalism that fits the natural greed by gearing it towards money. It"s the greed that"s fitting the to capitalism because there is that something of value. Also, this greed for money has been proven (see my R2 argument 2), to make people do completely inhumain and truly horrible things. Just to throw this on, on the subject of greed. "For normal people it is anti-social and soul destroying, not to mention very bad for our communities, which rely on altruism, compassion and a generalized concern for others." (1) (2) If people are lazy, then they do not get as much, or none. Saying that a lazy person should have the same or greater importance and income as a hard-working man is simply unfair to hardworking men and women who grow the economy. In a socialist society, where money won"t be of value as much (because of everyone getting the same amount), these "hardworking men and women who grow the economy" will be acknowledged and rewarded in other ways than money. My opponent also brings up the point about how the lazy will make as much as the hardworking. Yet would you not agree that even if they are lazy, they still deserve a chance, and that is what socialism gives them. It a capitalist society, if you are lazy, you will plummet to the bottom very quickly, and never be able to climb back up (see arg 4). Yet in a socialist society, it makes sure that even if you do slack off the tiniest bit, you get a second chance and can still function and still live like a normal person. Put simply, capitalism has no mercy, and socialism at least gives basic support. Also, again as stated before, while these lazy people can still function in society, the hardworking people will still be rewarded in many other ways. Money isn"t the only reward in the whole world. To continue. "Instead of being frowned upon as with Socialism, greed is a motivation in capitalism for the lazy to work harder so they can make as much money. Socialism tries to sweep the greed under the rug, while Capitalism addresses it head-on." As stated before, greed is only festered and geared towards money with capitalism, because of the money-lust that goes on. I will not disagree that it is unfortunate that some people have to suffer, but isn"t it better to have a system where some prosper while others falter and fail? Or is it better to have a system where all do less than mediocre? Think that everyone would do well individually with a redistribution of wealth? Think again. Frankly, no it is not better to have a system were people who fall can"t have a chance of getting back to the top. Also, I don"t believe that socialism will make everyone do less than mediocre. My opponent hasn"t stated how. Can you, opponent, please address this in your next round so I can properly clash. "Each person would get around $7500. But the cash only makes up for around 15% of M3; hence each person would get around $1000 in cash and the rest in savings accounts, certificates of deposits and other money instruments. Seven-thousand five-hundred dollars per person. No family or even individual person can live on that amount of money. Capitalism is necessary in our society because redistribution just can"t work." As stated in my R2 speech, "If we had a socialist society, everyone would earn roughly the same amount. Even if this number is low (I think it was $7500 according to my opponent), that doesn't matter. Why? Because maybe in capitalism anything under 10 000 is impossible to live on, but in a socialist society would BE ENOUGH. If the government owned major industries, they would realize that the people can"t pay for certain things with this small income. They would lower prices so that the money they give to the people is enough to live comfortably live on." Anyways: " Argument 2: Capitalism has worked far more than any other economic system. For space, I will just write all my clashes here one the general idea of the point, without quoting specifics, since there are a lot of unnecessary details. Darth seems to like to make the whole point that the USSR could not keep up with other capitalist countries and failed to function. Yet ladies and gentlemen, that"s because that was one country in a world of capitalism. The same thing would happen if a capitalist society was formed in a world of socialism. It would falter simply because that"s not how the circumstances are at the time, not because it is particularly bad. It"s like saying that a dog would grow up perfectly in a world of only cats. It wouldn"t, for the previous reasons. Also, my opponent keeps on stating that the soviet union was communist. In fact he said that word 5 times. He said it transitioned from socialist to communist. So when it started to fail, it was when it was communist, not socialist. If we are debating a debate about capitalism vs communism, then sure bring it up. But we are NOT. ARGUMENT 3: Advertisements { part 1} Our capitalist world has turned into a world of people trying to manipulate your emotions, just to make more money. Because people want more money, the advertise. The average person nowadays faces an average of 3000 ads a DAY. (2) This constant barrage of info is trying to change how we think and feel to make money. Don"t take my word for it. "emotional advertising is the best predictor of effective marketing and sales just about every time" (3) Marketers know this, and appeal to emotions to get these sales. There is a major flaw if people are manipulating someone's personal emotions for personal gain. ARGUMENT 4 Cycle of poverty (part 1) There is a real problem called cycle of poverty. It is when you are stuck in poor conditions and can"t get yourself out. Here is an example of the cycle of poverty: https://emilychocolate.files.wordpress.com... The way to break this chain is to get rid of poverty in the first place. In a socialist society, poverty will not exist because of the fact that everyone will get the same sufficient wage, not some income, or lack thereof, that will define how your life and your children's will fare. I am extremely sorry for the tiny arguments. I will greatly expand next round (ergo the part 1) May I suggest a change to the rules? You are allowed to post a google doc and have a max 15K character limit, to help both side finish rebuttals and arguments properly. DDD References: 1 http://www.counterpunch.org... 2 http://smallbusiness.chron.com... 3 http://www.businessinsider.com...