Capitalism vs Socialism

He still has not created a case for socialism. Has my opponent even created a case for socialism. You say "As socialism is shown through multiple sources to cover the failures of your proposed successes which have been disproved the case for Socialism is solidified by using the same basis you make for Capitalism and literally taking your points away from you and adding them to my own." He has not shown any, but criticize capitalistic failures. He has not represented a form of government therefore making his case just a rebuttal. He has not even defined socialism. Did he even bother to study socialism. "My opponent attacks my case with first a outdated source. If you click on his monthlyreview.org, you will find that his source is based in the early 2000s when the economic crash happened.", except the economic crash was in the "late 2000's" (http://www.investopedia.com......) specifically starting in 2007. Pro may want to check his knowledge of history history. All said in relation to this about the iPhone is wo/ source and since the dating is wrong irrelevant anyway. I am sincerely sorry that I did not say early 2000s, but late 2000s. Yes, I must check my history because the difference between early and late 2000 makes me historically inaccurate. "Also note that source dating for studies goes back about 20 years in normal debates." Cite the studies? "If the government provided food, Food would not get better because the government doesn't have a reason to get involved in that." not only is this again without a source but it's completely untrue as (http://www.usda.gov......) the United States Department of Agriculture (for example) gives out millions in grants for everything from starting a ranch to research projects for preventing malnutrition by increasing ease of access to people for personal farms in Food Deserts (http://www.usda.gov......) so I have no idea where pro gets his information. Perhaps he did not take a moment to even look? Millions of our tax payer money is going to the government. I looked at his source. His source comes from the government. I'm curious. Was my opponent really that desperate that his only source for the government improving food was from the government. That's like asking Fox News if they have bias. Even if my opponent's argument is valid, than explain how dealing with malnutrition has anything to do with my argument on making food taste better. Did my opponent even bother to read. I am okay with the government investing in malnutrition research, but that has nothing to do with getting food to taste better. My opponent's argument is irrelevant because it only attacks an anarchist. I am beginning to wonder if my opponent knows what a market is. I will give you the definition because this argument is entirely irrelevant to anything I am saying. Market: a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale and usually not by auction. I said that the government should not be in charge of the tech markets or industries. I was simply saying that if the government was in charge of this, we would have not progressed as much as we had. Who made the IPhone? Not the government. Who made Windows? Not the government. Who made Xbox? Not the government. Who made GTA 5? Not the government. Who is selling us our technology? Not the government. The government can research anything it wants, but that is not going to stop corporations into translating this technology into products we deem dearly such as GTA 5. My opponent did not attack my argument, because he fails to know what an economy is and what a market is. "Now, lets take this to a philosophical stage because happiness is itself very philosophical.", no it's not (http://insights.som.yale.edu......) and as a matter of fact it's highly tangible. Human happiness is quite measurable and furthermore as it is studied even more predictable with stronger correlations between various criteria being made over time as research continues in Economics. Did he really just say happiness is not philosophical and cited a source for it. My opponent says happiness is given through economy, but did not write how. Burden of Proof. "In his second argument, he argues that since capitalism is more inclined to profits their not going to support things like NASA. If you every read a page of video game history you would also note that video games manipulated the joysticks NASA used. Also the government created the Internet. Who exploited it for profit? Microsoft. What are we using right now. A thing made from capitalism." 1. This isn't actually a counterproof since NASA has never been supported by capitalism as NASA isn't receiving any for-profit treatment or preferences from anyone including those "joystick creators" (contractors? uncited.). 2. Microsoft doesn't "exploit the internet" and actually is a computer OS manufacturer. 3. Internet is a telephony service and thus telephone companies exploit the internet for profit. 1. Did I say capitalism supported NASA. NO! I said they got the technology from NASA, and translated it into neat things like arcade. 2. Who owns Internet Explorer? Is it a telephone company. 3. WHO GIVES INTERNET AS A SERVICE. My opponent thinks that it is common knowledge that you should know that Internet Explorer is made my AT&T. "He attacks my fast food arguments by saying that these foods are extremely unhealthy. That wasn't m point. The point is that markets can make food better." But I cannot see how unhealthy food would be considered "better". The problem here is that you outright lied (which is a fallacy: http://www.iep.utm.edu......) not that you're delusional. Though I am starting to wonder ... I kid, I kid. It's better than being 100% serious, is it not? Read the full argument before you critique. Oh my God. I am convinced that my opponent does not know anything about how markets work. He literally said that the government is in charge of food and rate nutritional value of all items. Its not like the Washington Herald, the Telegraph, or CNN have ever done it. I don't even think that you realize that you took my bait, and now I am starting to feel bad about your incapacity to read an argument. http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., I did the fast food argument because it is a representation when the free market goes bad, than the newspapers are all over it. See. Go to any news site, they will say that this food is unhealthy. You didn't say anything in your case about an alternative. In Conclusion, if I have not convinced you that capitalism does not work, consider this. 1. Did we not just forget our brothers and sisters in Russia? The people of Russia had to read what the state allowed, see what the state allowed and listen to what the state allowed. The state"s control of the media was total. Those who attempted to listen, read etc. anything else were severely punished. Everybody knew of the labour camps and that was enough of a deterrent.Education was strictly controlled by the state. In 1932, a rigid programme of discipline and education was introduced. Exams, banned under Lenin, were reintroduced. The way subjects were taught was laid down by the government - especially History where Stalin"s part in the 1917 Revolution and his relationship with Lenin was overplayed. Books were strictly censored by the state and Stalin ordered the writing of a new book called "A short history of the USSR" which had to be used in schools. We live here in America enjoying the free life of America while people in Russia starve. We enjoy our education system while the Russian people enjoy censored education. If we commit a crime we would be just scared of crime while others would be scared of being thrown into a camp. I am not saying that all socialist regimes are like this, but they are very similar. China and Cuba could have been examples, but failed and caused oppression. Power Corrupts.