Capitalism is the enemy ideology of the working class

It looks like my opponent strayed away from the round structure they agreed to when they accepted the debate(they made no disagreement with the structure I set before, so it should have been assumed they agreed). As you can see in round 2, they did not offer any direct rebuttals to my round 2 arguments, which they should have done. This now puts me at a disadvantage since I intend to follow the debate structure. I only get one round to rebut con's arguments and can only rebut their round 1 arguments because that was the structure. Since this clearly puts me at a disadvantage, I suggest that voters give the one point for conduct to me since con broke the agreed upon round structure. I would normally also rebut Con's arguments in round 2, but I cannot do that without breaking my own round structure.I would encourage my opponent not to make this mistake again and make sure to use their round 3 arguments as defense against my rebuttals(which is here) to their argumentsNow, I'll move onto my rebuttals of con's round 1 arguments. I will put in italicized words, quotes from my opponent. In addition, I will number my rebuttals in accordance with the number argument they are referring to that my opponent made.(1) The free market would punish them by enabling me as a competitor to put them out of business by exploiting their heartless, careless means of running their business.Or, alternatively, you could decide to establish the same things your competitor does: high prices and pay your employees poorly in order to increase profits. Why wouldn't you do that since you'd get more money out of it? Who cares about what the workers have to go through as long as you make profit? That's the only incentive in capitalism, after all: profit. That is what seems to have happened in the 1800s too, as wages were very terrible for everyone back then, working conditions were terrible, and workers had to work many hours during the day[8]. Since everyone was doing that, there was no alternative for workers to go, as every employer was paying workers terribly, and that's what happened back then before all of the regulations that came with the progressive era and after it. There's no evidence to suggest what my opponent suggests. In theory what my opponent said would be true, but historical fact is not on their side.(2) My opponent seems to be attempting to attack a specific type of leftist ideology(one supported by Bernie Sanders), but this is not effective since there are many leftist ideologies. Overall this entire argument here is non sequitur, which is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9]. The reason this is non-sequitur is because this argument has nothing to do with supporting capitalism, it's only an attack on a specific leftist ideology which isn't a good reason to support Capitalism, it's only reason to not support the specific leftist ideology and alternative conclusions could be that we should follow a different leftist ideology, or even a different rightist ideology other than capitalism. In order to support his plans, the average American would be paying 90-92 percent in taxes,I don't know where my opponent got this figure from, but it wasn't their own sources. From the very same source that my opponent cited, it says "Every household earning below $250,000 will face a tax hike of nearly 9 percent. Past that, rates explode, up to a top rate of 77 percent on incomes over $10 million." [10] The tax rate for people earning under $250,000 is currently 10-33%[11], having that raise by 9% would just be 19-42%, not nearly the 90-92% that my opponent claims. In addition, it's not a straight up 19-42%. Those rates are only taxed for the each bracket, so it's not 42% of all of your income, but only income above 190,150 is taxed at that rate. (3) My opponent here cites the democratic party, and the desire for a $15 minimum wage, but again, this doesn't represent all leftists and leftists have various solutions to these problems. I'll point out below what my solution to the problem is later in this argument.This is a ludicrous argument to make, because small businesses would be unable to afford to sustain themselvesWell, the strange thing is, majority of small businesses support a minimum wage increase[12] [13] if it was really going to hurt them, why would they support it? However, I would personally want to leave the minimum wage up to local governments. I believe capitalism does provide inadequate wages. As I pointed out in my round 2 main arguments, there are still many people living in poverty, even though they work full-time. In addition, the fact that business owners take a percent of the profits from the company, lowers the maximum wage workers can have in order to ensure the company still has a profit. My opponent didn't make any rebuttals to this, so this point still stands.So my solution to the low wage problem is not a support for minimum wage increases, but rather transitioning businesses to be worker-owned and democratically controlled.I will leave you with PragerU videos, to prevent exhausting you with more long-winded writing. PragerU is a very biased right-wing source. It's really pathetic that what they offer in their videos are not ever really scientifically peer-reviewed. They're supposed to be a university, so they should only be relying on factual information as provided by peer-reviewed articles, but as anyone who has seen their videos know, they offer only opinions and half-baked logic. Feel free to look at the videos my opponent offered from them, you'll see there is no scientific peer-reviewed information in them and everything claimed by the people in these videos are unsubstantiated. (4) This is all still non-sequitur, as attacking various forms of socialism and communism does not mean capitalism is the ideology of the working class. Now, I'd also like to point out that Sweden is not even socialist. They have never claimed to be socialist, nor have they ever had a socialist party in the majority. The same is true for Germany. Now, France has had a socialist party as a majority, though they never transitioned into a socialist economy. In addition, I wouldn't say that socialism or communism was the result of those millions of people killed. I would blame extreme authoritarianism/totalitarianism on it. Totalitarian socialism is an awful ideology, as you're right, it tends to lead to millions killed. However, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, and anarcho-communism has not resulted in millions dead. Two countries in history that could be described as one of those three ideologies are: Revolutionary Catalonia, during the Spanish Civil war of 1936-1939, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war of 1917-1922. Neither are recorded as having caused massive death(aside from in war in attempting to defend their countries). In fact, it was the Bolsheviks who crushed the Free Territory of Ukraine and Marxists who tried to overthrow Revolutionary Catalonia. Leftists don't get along with each other all the time, and history shows that we even get bloody with one another. Sources:[8] http://countrystudies.us...;[9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[10] https://fee.org...;[11] http://taxfoundation.org... [12] https://www.dol.gov...;[13] http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org...;