Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

Okay, starting with the definition war. .. I am unsure what the official rules are for this website when it comes to definitions, and I know that different types of debates have different rules. .. I will let the voters decide if letting Ayn Rand define Capitalism is acceptable. I will add that coming to a conclusion is not a bias. I understand that my opponent never said the NAP (Non-aggression Principle) is unnecessary and fallacious in and of itself. .. it just was not needed in the debate. I never said he said that. .. If you look closely, I refuted it by saying "Bringing in the NAP. .. " (And I used the wrong form of "principle". Okay. .. don't see how it affects the actual substance of my arguments). I continued to relate to how Capitalism is the only system compatible with the NAP. My opponent said that Marxian Socialism does not require the government to control distribution/production. .. I do not see how it could! To transform a country socialist. .. The government would have to take action, therefore violating the NAP. Just because something is rightful in the eyes of the law does not make it just. My definition of just (to which my opponent agreed to) is " acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (Merriam Webster’s)", not "Acting in conformity of the law". What Stalin and Mao did was righteous in their eyes as well. Again, the whole point of debate is to pick a side. .. Bias will happen. It may weaken my ethos, but to say that because I am biased, my arguments themselves are invalid or weak is fallacious. There is a good reason to support the NAP in capitalism. .. the NAP is what makes capitalism possible! Inversely, Capitalism should be respected and supported in relation to the NAP because no other system is compatible with it! The refutation to point about people not getting their products on the market. .. It is supported because in any controlled economy, getting products on the market is more difficult that with Laissez Faire Capitalism. I hope I do not have to explain it any further. 6th rebuttal: I never said that he said "Socialism does not trap creativity. " I was simply tag lining and paraphrasing it (Same with me saying that that he said "Monopolization is beneficial"), not quoting verbatim. I think I have explained why too. There has never been a laissez faire system anywhere. A lot of the times, the plutocracies and corporatist governments fail economically, but never because of following the NAP. Also, his contention as a whole (The two can co-exist) goes unsupported, so it falls. All he sites is some news channels saying it might work. .. almost a bandwagon fallacy. I believe I have won the debate because 1: His one contention falls 2: He did not refute fallaciously my first contention that Socialism=theft. There is no way socialism can be implemented on a national level besides taxes and redistribution. .. AKA government ran theft. So that contention still stands. 3: My second contention still stands because in capitalism, where there is less government getting in the way of people putting their products on the market, there are more choices in everyday life. He tried to refute it by saying that is not always true, but think about it. .. The less regulation, the easier it is to create. He may have better spelling and smoother sentences. I’ll admit that. But I think I won on logic and reason.