A system of true Capitalism is the most beneficial system for the world

Hopefully a better responce can happen for round 3. Because my opponent's arguments are meshed together I will do my best to separate it into two different contentions. Now to begin my rebuttals I will kritik my opponent's arguments. Rebuttal/Kritik: My opponents arguments are all centered on the 1st worldAll he talks about is how Capitalim benefits those in the 1st world. They are a small percent of the worlds population relative to the rest. To put it simply my opponent isn't looking at the big picture. By only focusing on a small part of the real process you become blind to what your actions really do. We need to look at the whole picture to determine what is the best thing to do. My opponent simply fails to do this. Let me give you a scenario. Process:? ?? Result: MoneyWell we don't really know what happened here, but by my opponents logic what was done must be good because the end result was good. Right? So, by my opponent's logic it would make sense to have this process repeated despite not really knowing what it is and not knowing if it is moral or if it is harmful. Now let's reveal the truth about what happens. Process: Mugging innocent people. Result: MoneyAren't we glad we did not follow the logic of my opponent so we did not continue having something immoral as that despite it benefiting us. Now you may be asking, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Well let me tell you. Pro's logic and arguments about Capitalism is similar. He is presented with the end result and likes it without taking into account the proccess of getting to that end result. That is a logic that needs to be rejected. So based on this K you should reject Pro's arguments on the basis they do not take the whole picture into account. Now I will rebut his points about why Capitalism is good. Rebuttal 1: FreedomI will be making multiple points to rebut this argument.1. True capitalism is not the only system that give it's members freedom. Some may say "well communism or socialism isn't very free so Capitalism seems to give the most freedom. " Well now let me explain to you why that's not true. It's not 3 points where you chose one or the other two. It's a spectrum. A system can not be a system of true Capitalism while still offering a great deal of freedom. For example let's take the U. S. It's a capitalist country, but it is far froma system of true capitalism. There is a lot of governement regulation of corporations and moderate to high taxes. However, citizens of the U. S. have a decent amount of freedom. Now let's take an even better example. Western European countries. They are far from a truly capitalist system, yet they have a lot of freedom and some of the best living conditions.2. Capitalism creates situations for people that are anything but free. For example, let's take sweatshop workers. They are a result of capitalist production. That is for the most part an undeniable fact. Let's ignore the governement in this scenario and how much freedom the government gives them. Let's focus on their job and situation in life. They are not in a free position. Now you may be saying how is that Greg? They're free to walk away from their jobs at any time right? Can they really? Think about it. They are in that position of horrible conditions not because they want to, they're doing it because they have to. They have to feed their families and themselves. They're so desperate for any means of survival they are willing to put themselves in those horrible condition, and corporations capitalize of that. They take advantage of their desperation to make money and throw them into a hellhole they label as a workplace. These people don't have freedom. They're trapped. They are stuck in this system even though they technically can leave. They're like slaves, but just slaves with a wage. Rebuttal 2: Economy I have a few points to rebut my opponents arguments.1. The credibility and use of sources is very important here. I have used plenty of sources from a variety of different places from credible authors. My opponent litterally just dropped a link to somewhere we can buy a textbook about economics. Come on. You can't just drop a textbook hundreds of pages long in a debate without sumarizing it or bringing up specific points from said book and just say read this it proves I'm right. The book doesn't even argue that true capitalism is the best system in the world. That's not even the point of a textbook. Textbooks are there to give objective points about facts, not subjective views of opinions. You could have at least linked a site where we could read the book not a site where we can pay 100 to buy it. You can find a pdf for the book here: . http://sangu.ge...;My opponent fails to point out any quotes or sections of said textbook, which means this source should not be considered as it is next to impossible to read the textbook in the 24 hour timeframe I have to post this round. The only other source my opponent gives is a map of where in the world has the most economic freedom, while useful information it does not back up any of his claims. So this source should also not be considered. Therefore my opponent has no sources backing up his claims and they are bare assertions.2. My opponent only looks at Capitalism in the realm of economics. While I concede that true Capitalism is good for the short term economy that does not mean that Capitalism is the most beneficial system to the world. My opponent fails to explain why a better economy is best for the world. My opponent also does not look at Capitalism in aspects such as social or enviornmental which are critical to the world and are very important factors in deciding if this is the most beneficial system for the world. 3. Capitalism is not best for the economy long term because it is unsustainable. You can see the sources and arguments provided in my previous round to prove this point. 4. Many of my opponent's arguments are based on the teachings of Adam Smith and only economists such as Adam Smith. While Smith was an absolute genious and his ideas are very important today there are a few problems with only bases your beliefs on Smith's teachings. A. Smith's work took place in a time period where very little was known about the effects of production, therefore those critical factors were left out of his ideas. For example the knowledge of enviornmental impacts of our production were unheard of in Smith's time. Therefore, basing all of your ideas on teachings such as Smith's is like taking one fourth of the picture and thinking you understand the whole picture based on just that one fourth. B. Karl Marx started a path of new ideas about the effects of production that are critically important to understand and consider while concluding your stance on Capitalism. Smith's ideas came 50 years before Marx's ideas. In other words Smith's arguments are missing a whole side of the debate that is critical to know. C. Smith was simply too optimistic for realalistic views on the world.5. "Capitalism is theoretically flawless" Theorieticly is the key word here. You know what else is theoreticly flawless? Communism. Does that mean its a flawless system? Hell no. If a system is theoreticly flawess caries no weight whatsoever in the debate of the real world. I understand Capitalism is arguably an amazing system saying that it is perfect is absolutely ridiculous. Contrary to what Pro said, the resolution is negated. I rest my case.