Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president

My opponent begins his arguments with naive attacks on my arguments defending capitalism. Yes, these companies are focused on making profit, and it benefits us. If you had a life, you would at least use some social networking site. Social Networking has benefited a lot of people. Sure, you can call the people running these sites to be self-serving, but they are still serving you. Facebook and Twitter have connected millions of people around the world. . http://blogs.wsj.com... Social networks have helped the Black Lives Matter movement to gain momentum. Social Networking is valuable. One might be confused on how this relates to capitalism. Let's first define Capitalism. Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Basically, where people control their own lives, and their own futures. The government does not intervene, and there is generally low taxes on everybody. One can start his own business, and not have to worry about bureaucrats messing with his rights to do something like that. . http://smallbiztrends.com... It is hard to start a business in the countries Bernie Sanders thinks is ideal. In Denmark, 54% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations. In Finland, 46% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations. In the United Kingdom, 59% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations. In France, 66% of people say it is hard to start a business in Europe, because of the regulations. My point is that if an ambitious Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckeberg wanted to start a business, than they would not want to live in Europe. A place Bernie Sanders thinks is heaven. He argues that Microsoft and Apple are hurting America. . http://fortune.com... 42% of Americans use IPhones. . http://news.microsoft.com... 200 million devices now run on windows. Also, if you forgot about the person that started Microsoft. Bill Gates got extremely wealthy off of Microsoft. . http://www.businessinsider.com... "Gates has already donated $28 billion since 2007 to eradicate deadly diseases around the world. He also hopes to double investment in renewable technology in the next five years. " Also, they did a very interesting study on those that are filthy rich. "The results were startling. Those who held more power over others were more likely to choose future reform over immediate relief to fix the hunger problem. In a similar experiment, 465 people could choose between keeping a $1,000 bonus for themselves now or a larger amount a year later. Alternatively, they were free to give the money to another person now or a larger amount to someone later. Those who had more power were found to be more likely to part with the bonus for future use. " My opponent continues to attack my arguments on how Sanders is weak on foreign policy. But, you cannot attack what is actual fact. Sanders would probably be extremely weak on foreign policy. . http://www.nytimes.com... Sanders has accused Iran of supporting terrorism. A great thing to say to a future ally. A good example of Sanders not being specific when it comes to foreign policy is this:"Sanders has also urged confronting Russian leader Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. ("You totally isolate him politically, you totally isolate him economically," Sanders said on Fox News last year. ) What does he mean by this? Is he practicing protectionism? What is this? My opponent attacks the Treaty of Versailles argument calling it a wrong comparison to the Islamic State. Well let me a little bit more specific unlike Sanders on foreign relations, Putin and Obama are right now having their own little proxy war in Syria. Obama opposes Assad, while Putin supports Assad. Putin has bombed groups that support America, but not Assad. This battle is for Syria. If America leads a coalition, than that will lead to more arguing, and their will be another Treaty of Versailles. . http://www.bloomberg.com... My opponent insults my knowledge on how primaries and caucuses work. Yes, I am perfectly aware of how they work, and I fell bad for the idea that you wasted characters on them. Sanders could bring 3,000 people to his speech, but their is no evidence on how that would link to a high voter turnout. My opponent continues with saying that since no democratic candidate will be able to get congress to follow up with them, that would mean that they are on the same field as Bernie. True, but they actually are sane when it comes to dealing with the markets, and foreign relations with other countries. Sanders is horrible, because he is so far left that Congress will never accept what he says. My opponent admits that congress won't work for him, and that just makes my job much easier in proving that Bernie is a waste of time. . http://www.wsj.com... To throw in a quick argument proving how outlandish Sander's proposals are, his plans cost 18 trillion dollars. I think that speaks for itself to anyone that can count. I have won many points in this debate. I have a lot more evidence proving what I am saying is right about Bernie Sanders. The whole round 2 of my opponent were just how Sanders relates to Roosevelt. Note that my opponent completely dropped that point. I have rebutted all of my opponent's arguments with facts not speculation. My opponent has used a lot of his thinking to argue against me. Thinking vs Evidence.