Socialism is evil

" - The state owns the common means of production and redistributes wealth. - You don"t get to include the more important half of your definition just because it suits your needs" - This is a baseless accusation, I have included the entire definition, You've just ignored it. I elaborated in my last argument the ways the government owns the means of production, I will do so again here just to clarify for the reader. - The government owns the means of production in these countries, First of all, They regulate the economies to ensure there is wealth equality in the country. Secondly, These countries governments use their GDP to buy businesses to stimulate the economy. Thirdly these countries stimulate the economy by owning healthcare and the education system. - I did include the whole definition, But for some odd reason my opponent keeps on ignoring my points. Either way, This is a clarification just in case my opponent makes these claims again. Then again he probably is going to ignore this but either way. ". If we were to double our tax rates and assume that this proposal wouldn"t result in a max exodus of medical professionals, We still wouldn"t be able to afford it. " - My opponent is using an argument that I already addressed in the previous rounds. Just to clarify for the reader, I already provided statistics that show that while taxes would rise, We would save money in the long run. - This is a rather simple math equation that I've stated numerous times, I pay 1, 500 dollars on healthcare, I now pay 1, 000 dollars on healthcare now that it's nationalized. Therefore I saved 500 dollars. - What sounds better paying more for less? Or paying less for more? " Here"s the thing, In your definition it says that socialism redistributes wealth. It never says that wealth distribution is specifically socialist. In fact, In your opening argument you created the distinction yourself. " - Ok, I can use this same logic on capitalism or ANY other system for that matter, - Capitalism NEVER states that free trade is exclusive to it, So I guess that means that these socialist countries are socialist countries after all. - Communism NEVER states that a classless system is exclusive to it, So I guess that means capitalism is a classless system. - Athiesism never states that the disbelief in god is exclusive to it, So I guess that means religious people can express disbelief in god as well. The bottom line is this logic is rather arbitrary and can literally be translated into any other system in existence. " - They are capitalist, That"s how the government pays for it"s extensive welfare system. " - The existence of government and a welfare system, In general, Are created by the redistribution of wealth. This means that these countries are mixed. " I will provide a few links proving how non-socialist the Scandinavian countries are, But that"s all I can do since you"ve neglected to specify a prosperous socialist country (it doesn"t even have to be "100% socialist, " just primarily so). " - I have no interest in you providing me links to good counterpoints, I want to hear YOUR points. Linking me your points through other studies with no analysis is lazy and it is not good for developing a constructive thought process. Otherwise, I could just link to you 100 videos demonstrating my counterpoints. - I already provided to you countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, And Japan, All of which have high levels of socialized markets and arguably are more successful than the US is currently doing. " - This is inaccurate for our purposes, Since it also includes government size, Government integrity, And judicial effectiveness. " - Ok so than what country would you have me provide than? If government size ETC mattered than explain how much smaller countries have more free trade than the US? Size doesn't matter that much since with a large country comes a large government. " That"s impossible considering the general increase in taxation they require to support them. " - Considering the amount of money we would save on a universal healthcare model, I'd wager people would save more money on a free college than being bankrupted by student loans. " - In most cases they actually work against the economy directly by inculcating a reliance upon government through handouts. " - This is another baseless accusation, Again I already provided to you Singapore which has a free college model and has the worlds highest IQ. Another example would be Finland which is also highly ranked as one of the best education systems in the world and has a more socialized education model. " - How? There is nothing about regulation that is inherently socialist by your definition. - Limiting something isn"t the same as controlling and providing something. " - The government in these countries spend a good portion of their GDP on investing into businesses. - You do understand that regulation and stimulation is essentially what controlling something is right? For example, In boy scouts, I am an ASPL or (assistant senior patrol leader). The SPl and I regulate, Put, And enforce rules on scouts in order to keep them in line. This is essentially controlling them. Of course, We aren't literally doing the stuff for them however this concept can be applied to the government. - The government regulates businesses by providing minimum wage and safety regulations, Stimulate them by providing healthy and educated citizens, And put rules on these businesses. " Redistribution isn"t a synonym with socialism, Even under the definition, You provided that isn"t the case. " - Redistribution is essential to the government. Again this is as if I stated that profit wasn't a synonym with capitalism when in reality without profit capitalism is almost useless. " - All socialist countries have to redistribute, But not all redistribution is socialist. " - It's in the definition, So yes redistribution is inherently socialist. This is as if I stated that all capitalist countries have free trade, But not all free trade is capitalist. By this logic, I could use free trade in a socialist country and still pass it off as a capitalist, Which of course defeats your entire argument. " - Providing health insurance is vastly different from hiring doctors and creating free public hospitals. " - You understand that these countries own these hospitals right? " - As god awful as our public school system is, I think we would benefit quite a bit from privatization. " - This is a claim that isn't developed at all and isn't backed up by statistics at all and I've already provided statistics that prove that more socialized education countries are smarter. " In response to your Germany example, A simple indicator of health is the obesity problem: World Graph on the profile. " - Interesting so you don't think that national healthcare which provided more access to doctors, Gives people better chances of conquering obesity? Doctors provide patients with physicals, Assessments on their health which could include whether or not they're exercising properly or whether or not they may be deficient in some vitamins. "- If you publicize and normalize college, They will be unable to teach skills at an advanced level. Perhaps instead of destroying the college system further, We should fix secondary and primary schooling first. " - These are baseless claims and my opponent has provided little to no analysis, Therefore I will ignore these points. I am unable to respond to several other of my opponent's claims due to the limited character space but regardless I feel I've made my points. My opponent has avoided questions and counter-arguments, Making baseless accusations with little to no analysis, And has proven himself to be nothing more than a shill for capitalists as he is pushing for idea's which contradict his own objectives as a conservative