Socialism is a step backwards in human evolution

Let me begin by pointing out that Pro has made a number of radical claims but does not use a single source to back it up. I will list his unsupported claims below. However, I will address them. Unsupported Claims: 1. "Private property rights have been completely eliminated and your property can be sold to the highest bidder under the disguise of creating more revenue for the state." REBUTTAL: Pro provides no source to suggest this is anything but incoherent ramblings from a man afraid of the socialist bogeyman. Since he provided no source I searched for one to no avail. We can take this as fiction. 2. "The education system will become nationalized under the current administration." REBUTTAL: The US education system has been public and national since the nineteenth century. I suppose you could say it is national under this administration, but that is because nothing has changed. Nationalized education has been a positive factor in our nation. It has led to high literacy rates and rapid technological advancement. 3. "All farm land will be taken over by the govt by giving subsidies to farmers who grow what the govt wants and take them away for those who don't." REBUTTAL: Unsupported, and I could find no source suggesting this to be true. This is an attack by a rabid anti-administrationist. 4. "He has the nerve to call my source propaganda then sites the UN as a source what a friken joke. The UN is as anti capitalist anti American as it gets." REBUTTAL: He offers no source or any reason why the UN is not a reliable source. In typical fashion, he derides it as 'socialist'. That seems to be his stock answer for everything not to his liking. Additionally, I alse used some US sources which he did not refute. Since he did not refute any of my claims, the remain unchallenged. 5. "I stand by the source and can prove every word of it." REBUTTAL: He states this and then proceeds to not prove any part of it... In fact, he makes no mention of the film's content. He only mentions the film to claim that it is not propaganda. ------- The next few claims are all in reference to Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom, Finland. He attempts to convince you that all of them share the same attributes, the same failings, and the same successes. Obviously this is as true as saying the US has the same attributes, failures, and successes as Singapore - another capitalist country. However, I will address all of his points: 6. "No one but no one enters or leaves those countries with out proper documentation." REBUTTAL: In theory, this should be the case in the US as well. Illegal immigration is not a positive attribute for any nation. To limit or completely curb illegal immigration would be a positive goal - a goal that my opponent himself supports. 7. "All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list in population growth, vertualy static" REBUTTAL: No Source. Not that this is a negative attribute by any means. One danger of the future is overpopulation. If most of the world's nations stopped growing by population we would remove this threat to stability. Additionally, low or static population growth in an indicator of development. Developed countries have smalled families. (Chowdhury, para. 5, http://www.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd...) The US has a similar growth rate to some of them, which I will show below. All percentages gathered from the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov...): Population Growth: US - 0.883% (2008 est.) Norway - 0.88% (in 2009) Sweden - 0.72% (As of 2006 est.) Luxembourgh - 1.188% (2008 est.) UK - 0.276% (2008 est.) Finland - 0.112% (2008 est.) 8. "All of the countries listed are at the bottom of the list when it comes to importing goods and services from other countries... Do I even have to mention the current unsustainable trade deficit we have now." REBUTTAL: a) Another unsupported claim. Again, this is not a negative attribute. When a country is exporting more goods than it is importing it is a sign of wealth and a sign that it is producing the goods and services that it needs at home. b) A nation can only be said to have a trade deficit when it is importing more goods than it is exporting. 9. "All all those countries will topple in a matter of months if the US were to adopt their system of socialism." REBUTTAL: Another unsupported claim. This is a very americocentric position. To think that all nations would fail because the US fails is absurd and not based in reality. The world would continue to function with or without the US. 10. "'Per capita GDP' This is because they import virtually nothing and export everything. These figures are artificial and will not stand if the US adopts their system, they will have to tax their citizens to make up the trade imbalance that will result when the US goes protectionist as they are now." REBUTTAL: As mentioned before, exporting more than you import is a positive goal for any country. Their figures are not artificial and are only related to the US in that some of their imports come from the US and some go to the US. The US is not the only market available for European (or any) goods. I will supply 2 examples, because to supply more would be redundant and take up too much space. I will also only list exports, because that is the topic. Below is a list of Norway's principle trading partners: Exports UK - 12,375 Netherlands - 6,857 Germany - 6,171 France - 6,009 Sweden - 5,042 United States - 4,642 Denmark 2,293 Belgium 2,073 Finland 1,293 Italy 1,119 Japan 989 (Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...) Below is a list of Sweden's principle trade partners: Germany - 7,896 UK - 6,751 Norway - 6,206 Denmark - 4,602 US - 6,638 Netherlands - 3,570 France - 4,315 Finland - 4,818 Italy - 2,844 Belgium - 2,825 (Source: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...) As you can see, the US is not even the principle import nation of these countries' exports. To withdraw the US market would have an effect, but not an apocalyptical one as Pro has suggested. Obviously the US would not do that anyway because it would be against US interest. 11. "The entire list is completely and totally reliant on outside sources for it to survive they all have static populations and are protectionist in nature. If the US were to stop or even reduce imports they would all crumble." REBUTTAL: No sources. Pro has not even informed us as to what outside sources all of these nations are reliant upon. As mentioned above, the US is not the only market available. ------ Following a string of unsupported claims, my opponent personally attacks me, claiming that I "[do] no research and [make] no attempt to look at it in the real world and in real terms." On the contrary, I supplied a number of diverse sources to support my claims. It is my opponent who failed to do research, choosing to let an anti-socialist propaganda film (that also does not support its claims) to speak for him. ----- CONCLUSION My opponent has cited no sources to support his claims, save for an anti-socialism propaganda video by a "Bored as Hell Videos" that does not even connect to any of Pro's claims. My opponent has resorted to personal attacks on me. He has claimed that I have done no research despite the fact that I supported all of my claims with statistics and relevent sources. As previously mention, he cites none. My opponent has not addressed my argument in a meaningful way. His only response to my argument is that if the US were to stop accepting the exports of the European Democratic Socialist nations, they would fail. He offers no rational as to why this would occur. Democratic Socialism is not a step backward in human evolution