Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

Thank you for your compliment and for your well built argument. As a brief roadmap to my arguments for this round, I will be expanding upon the meaning and workings of Socialism, defending my points, attacking his, and bringing up my third contention. Major Point: Socialism in context to the Topic. My opponent has justified the use of comparing Communist China and Russia to Socialism with the excuse that I have related America to Capitalism. The difference is that China and Russia are Communist, a distinct political system that is diametrically opposed to Democracy. I am debating about the economic and social benefits of Socialism in a Democratic system, which makes Communism unrelated to the issue at hand. America still pursues many Capitalist ideals and would best be described as a Corporatist or Corporate Capitalist system. The difference between Social Democracy and Communism is much greater than the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism, and thus my opponent's use of China, Communist Russia, and Cuba as examples is unjust and invalid. Defense of Contentions 1 and 2: Any government regulation of spending defies the economic ideals of Capitalism, and Socialism does indeed have a political system. My opponent has tried to counter my argument by stating that some "Capitalist" countries, such as New Zealand, put caps on campaign spending for each party, thus reducing the influence of interest groups and the wealthy elite. But when a government places caps on campaign spending, it is defying Capitalist ideals and actually pursuing Socialist ideals; specifically, the Socialist ideal of government regulation of business. Politics and government positions supply jobs to a large portion of the population in any Democratic country, and thus government can be seen as a corporation (it fits the definition as shown by http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Any regulation of the corporation, including the regulation of the spending of the parties within, would be Socialism and not Capitalism. Thus, Capitalism cannot cap the amount of money spent by parties during election, and thus cannot prevent the wealthy elite from dominating and electioneering the political process. My opponent's first counterexample to my second contention was that his own country, New Zealand, overrepresents minority rights. However, he provided no evidence that it does so, and did not describe how it does so. His second counterexample to my second contention was that neo-socialist countries such as China and Russia persecute minorities. However, this is not a fair couterexample or point as China and Russia are not Socialist, but rather are or were Communist, and have used the political system set out by Communism to persecute minorities, not the economic and social principles of Socialism. First rebuttal: Socialism does not have arbitrary class distinctions, and the equal distribution of wealth prevents "favors" in the political system. My opponent has stated that Socialist countries are rife with arbitrary class distinctions, then used a Communist country as his example once again. Once more, Communism is not comparable to Socialism, because Socialism is an economic and social system, while Communism is a political system. The gap between Socialism and China, Russia, and Cuba is much more immense than the gap between Capitalism and America. Communism, once again, is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. My opponent's comparisons are invalid. The social and economic policies of Socialism do not allow for arbitrary class distinctions any more than a Capitalist system does. Neither has a political system or means for which people would be elevated to higher standpoints arbitrarily. Rather, in Capitalism an individual can attain a higher socioeconomic class by obtaining more wealth Second rebuttal: Socialism guarantees voters political freedom just like Capitalism, and prevents any individual from using his or her political freedom to restrain the political freedom of another. Once again, my opponent is trying to use Capitalism as a political system. It is not. It is an economic and social system. The topic addresses only economic and social factors in the context of Democracy as well, not political, thus it is assumed that the political system at work is a form of Democracy. I would like to kindly ask my opponent to stop using reference to political system or traits, as they are out of the context of the topic. I will still rebutt my opponent's point, though, by saying that the original idea behind Socialism was the creation of a Utopian society where citizens benefit each other and the government, and vice versa. In this system, citizens would have political bargaining power as they are the mechanisms behind government. The regulation of business inherent in a Socialist Democracy protects the rights of workers, and gives them the ability to assemble or strike. Citizens still have political bargaining power, and still have the right to speak out against unfair conditions under a Socialism. In fact, this right is even stronger because in Socialism, unlike Capitalism, another individual cannot use his or her wealth to strengthen his or her political freedom and then use that political freedom to restrain the political freedom of another. I originally intended to bring up a third contention in this argument, but have run short on space. For my final round, I will bring up my last contention, rebutt my opponent's points, and offer up a conclusion. I'm excited to see your response!