Instigator / Pro

Would socialism on a large scale be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism?


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Con

In this debate, socialism will be defined as a command economy in which all the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned and regulated by the federal government and democratically elected officials.

Burden of proof is shared.

All arguments given MUST be at least 3,500 characters to prove that both participants are committed to the debate. Failure to adhere to this will result in a loss.

Forfeiting a round will result in a loss.

To clarify, the first person to forfeit or break the character rule loses immediately, after that the rules no longer apply.

Round 1
I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate and thank everyone else for reading.

Economists tend to be skeptical of socialism, mainly because command economies fail to allocate resources efficiently or respond quickly to supply and demand. Socialism relies on the famously debunked labor theory of value, the assumption that the value of an item is determined by the number of hours required to produce it. This theory has since been proven false [1]. This fact is so widely accepted that I don't think my opponent will dispute it. But if it becomes necessary, I can explain in more detail why the theory fails.

Because value is subjective, a command economy will produce much less value than a free market with similar amounts of labor, as the items produced do not respond quickly to supply and demand. If a company is not turning a profit under capitalism, the owners will switch to producing something people want. But large economies are extremely complex, and most businesses fail due to lack of demand for the product produced [2]. Under capitalism, only the businesses satisfying a need survive, and millions of businesses invest huge amounts of effort into meeting consumer demand. Under socialism, the government can fail repeatedly, and competitors do not exist to pick up the slack.

Economists today are divided between the theories of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August Hayek. The most famous (or infamous) example of Keynesian economics was the implementation of the New Deal. It is known today that not all New Deal policies were helpful and that some even made the depression worse [3]. Under socialism, the government would be forced to regulate every market indiscriminately, even those that are better left alone. Even Keynesian economists will scoff at this.

Command economies consistently fail for the reasons I have mentioned. The USSR, China, and Cuba all failed to keep up with their capitalist counterparts, but each of these countries recovered in part when some markets were reopened. In China, for example, starvation was widespread until Deng opened markets [4].

Due to the complexity of the economy, a socialist government is forced to aim for superficial targets, such as low employment, even if the jobs people get aren't producing anything people want. Value is subjective, and optimal prices can only be achieved through voluntary exchange as businesses adjust to supply and demand [5]. Cuba can only survive by privatizing some markets and allowing limited capitalism [6]. Still, Cuba cannot keep up with freer markets in other countries.

In the centuries after socialism was first proposed, it has been repeatedly debunked. Economists tend to prefer market economies as more efficient [7] [8]. They also claim they are unable to predict demand for items or boom and bust cycles. So for socialism to work, economists must be much dumber than they say they are and much smarter than they say they are (in order to accurately predict demand). In fact, elected officials have to do this accurately and repeatedly when the smartest economists in the world claim to be unable to do so.

Under America's current form of capitalism, there is more than enough value to go around. Wealth can be redistributed through taxation. But in a socialist economy, value is in short supply and the poor cannot be helped. I will remind the audience that my opponent must defend government control of all industries, not just some. They are arguing that the government should regulate every single industry. And every time this has been tried, it has led to living standards much worse than those generated by capitalism.

Would socialism on a large scale be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism?
The answer is based on these outlined points: 

1.  the u.s. already applies socialist policies. 
Like the american people, economic policies have melted together from different approaches. In some cases this helps, like in China.

However, sometimes the parts for economic stability does not fit. The main reason for this in  america is that socialism is not used at a larger scale.  

Although taxation itself does not demonstrate socialism, to tax for the purpose of redistributing wealth does.  Govt. now regulates where money goes and to whom. Failure occurs in two ways; a ) the current system has short comings because it applies contradicting policies b.)  wealth remains with individual vs with the community. 

2. Lead poisoning has been a growing concern within America. We can find this poison primarily used in construction and manufacturing between 1900 to 1978. For the average homeowner, the means to prevent exposure include a handful of  expensive options that they are responsible for. 

We see this issue in Infrastructure as well. Local and sometimes state authorities look towards federal assistance. Again we see a reliance on federal resource which is supplied through bonds and investments. 

Govt. then repays private investors with more money. Majority being collected from the community, not the investors. 

We see a greater redundancy as the process to aquire resource is met with privatized barriers. 

These are just some privatized barriers that can stall or even prevent much needed projects. 

A more centralized oversight on wealth collection and distribution that socialism can provide will help overcome our current struggle to update our communities  and take away unneeded health risks. 

3.   Just as we can look to failed attempts and horrible mistakes "at the hands of socialism." We can see errors arise in free markets as laborers have been forced to work under unhealthy conditions. Stories about dangerous working conditions are plentiful, but continue today where regulation is lacking. 

Yes we can see how regulation has helped prevent work injuries because laws do exist to enforce OSHA standards. Laws exist to limit and prevent consumer exposure to rotten meats or lead. Unfortunately the health problem in america expands past these areas of regulation.  

Health care which was once an incentive to go to work is being called out for shortcomings. We have started a small step towards a national health care system that operates with private insurance. However the full potential is yet to be met. Insurance companies still weigh heavy on consumers as premiums rise and the most needed medicines are priced higher than ever before. There are many insurance and  pharmaceutical companies set the prices based on profits.  Our reaction is a price cap that favors the profits. Again the steps taken resemble socialism but are not enough. 

4. As america takes these steps to go a little bit further into socialism, citizens will celebrate in the rewards. Perhaps more importantly, we may be rest asure that our govt. will express long term goals  and commitments for citizens that may not just vanish after 4 years. 

Another non economical benefit to a more socialist america is the clarity citizens will have in knowing how policy will be set. We now have a guideline for what laws may be passed that will not contradict previous attempts. Such consistency provides not just clarity, but confidence in the govt. 

In conclusion, above points should highlight how socialism as a whole would be better for america compared to today. 

( I lost links in pasting text. May supply them one recorded.)
Round 2
I think the flaws in my opponent's position are very clear given the evidence presented in my opening. Nevertheless, I will emphasize several of the more glaring problems with the proposals they have made.

First, it is true that the US government does intervene in certain parts of the economy. As I stated in my opening, economists will sometimes advocate for Keynesian policies. But sometimes these policies can backfire, and applying them to every industry has consistently led to poorer living standards. In capitalism, the government can pass policies to deal with lead poisoning, but we also have the benefit of competition. Under socialism, if the government was unable to find an alternative to lead, as socialist economies are found to lack innovation, we would be stuck with it. We should not rely on the government to find efficient solutions to every problem; we can usually be more confident expecting them not to.

My opponent points to working conditions and living standards, but socialism does not solve either of those problems. Government control of every industry has consistently made it impossible to provide decent standards of living to the general population. Remember that we're comparing socialism to a version of capitalism where unions exist and a minimum wage has already been implemented in many places. A minimum wage is possible under capitalism. Under socialism, it's unaffordable.

I have no doubt that the government will aim for certain goals. Every socialist government has aimed for certain goals, but command economies are terrible at achieving them. Millions of businesses all competing with each other for a better product will always yield better results than a single government entity that's too big to fail. If my opponent wants to redistribute wealth and implement programs to help the poor, we must first be able to afford them.

We can agree that government policies are often unclear. But there's no reason to assume that inefficient and wishy-washy politicians will get everything together when we hand them control of the economy. Politicians have consistently remained inefficient and wishy-washy under socialism, and they have taken the economy down with them. Economists know much more about this than politicians do, and they continue to agree on how little they know. This is why Hayek warned about the pretense of knowledge—no economist or government can successfully manage the entire economy.

Again, appealing to regulations under capitalism is not a justification for socialism. Such regulations are only economically feasible when there is more than enough wealth to go around. Competition between businesses has always been the main source of innovation, and the most that governments can do is occasionally offer incentives. Economists can't even agree that all our current government policies are helpful. There's no reason to implement more of them in industries that are doing fine on their own.

If we want to redistribute wealth to the poor, we have to remember how it's generated in the first place. As I said before, this isn't really a matter of debate. Economists have studied this for centuries, and governments that overstep consistently worsen the lives of their citizens. Economists usually argue about trade-offs, but there's no "trade-off" with socialism—everybody loses.

But the biggest problem my opponent has failed to address is how the government will predict demand for products, especially ones that don't exist yet. Businesses in capitalism continue to predict what people want before they realize it themselves. There's nothing comparable with socialism.

1.   As stated before, needs for more socialist policies are not restricted to economics alone. Our cost to benefit ratio considers more than just economic growth because all economies fluctuate.  Even in capitalism no policy is 100% perfect but no policy is 100% damaging.

If 1 policy fails another can be applied. Businesses do this all the time. There is nothing that restricts govt. from acting in the same way.

My opponent mentions Keynesian policies. How applying them to every industry has led to poorer living standards. This statement misses 2 points:
A.) I already stated that the style of socialism supported in this debate relies on both micro and macro economics. 
B. ) FDA is an example of socialist program that is not economic based but for the health and safeguard of the community. 

Lead would still be used today if not for govt. intervention. This includes foods and other consumer products that have seen a decrease in exposure.

Although capitalist governments can pass policies to deal with lead poisoning, they rely on socialist policies to do so. 

Unfortunately my opponent misleads us by, again, restricting the meaning and application of socialism to claim socialism could not find alternatives to lead. Probably referring  to old communist regeimes that socialism does not need to immitate. 

2.  My opponent suggests that socialism does not create better working conditions for laborers. Except govt. has to use socialist polices to implement safer working conditions.  Minimum wage is an example of a socialist policy that requires management to adjust for inflation and economic cycles. 

Although unions have helped push for these policies, unions historically rely on mob mentality and violence in the abscence of govt. intervention.

 Unions are often blamed for economic unrest and community pains in their search for benefits that can be more than individual needs. Ironically, unions are a product of capitalism. 

3.  "If my opponent wants to redistribute wealth and implement programs to help the poor, we must first be able to afford them.". 
This statement is a false delima; painting a picture that implies wealth distribution and poverty assistance relies primarily on resources. Even a quick look at an individual issue like hunger identifies complexity. Issues that private businesses historically do not address. 

4.  We see another attempt to restrict what socialism could be as my opponent highlights failures to learn from. Even in socialist societies, the people can influence govt. oversight by voting. 

I cater to guess that my opponent may give an extreme example of communism to suggest citizens would have no say on how policies are made. 

5. Finland is ranked happiest country in the world. Finland is socialist. Majority of countries identified as "happiest" apply a mixed economy which america does but not well enough.  Again, I argue for more socialism not absolute socialist regeime like communism.

6. Failed to address is how the government will predict demand? Lets not forget my opponent first said it was impossible. But maybe this was only impossible for govts. to accomplish? 
Sorry Mr. President. The majority of your cabinet uses macro economics. Useless. 
There is a principal difference between capitalism and socialism. This difference is advertisement. The capitalist tells us we want an item despite us not wanting it to begin with. Manipulative tactics  are used to convince us there is always a need unsatisfied. Socialism aims to satisfy.

Now in regards to how a socialist govt. today will predict supply and demand. This is simple because govt. already does this, and it can expand to include micro economics. Finland is a good example. 

Round 3
My opponent has repeated many of the same mistakes from their first round. Again, they try to use specific government regulations to justify socialism on a large scale. But these policies only have a chance of working if they are narrowly applied to certain industries, and they are pretty terrible at generating wealth. Why should we overregulate other industries that aren't killing people? And regulation does not mean that something must be run by the government. If we want an alternative to lead, we should encourage innovation instead of depending on a similar government entity.

My opponent disavows old communist regimes, but they have not explained how a command economy could possibly do today at predicting demand than command economies in the past. Their job is not to argue for "socialist policies." The description makes it clear that they must support government control of every industry, and the government is terrible at predicting what customers want when compared to private enterprises.

Finland is not socialist, if you read the first few sentences in the link my opponent gave. Socialism is not "when the government does stuff." Finland applies a lot of welfare programs but does not ban private innovation, which my opponent's method of socialism would. Government control of every industry has always yielded poor results in the past. If anything, Finland is an example that welfare programs can be achieved without putting the government in charge of every industry.

The government does not predict what consumers want. As I stated before, most businesses are terrible at this as well. The only way to develop innovative products is with the brute-force approach that capitalism uses. With so many companies competing to make the next big thing and huge profit incentives to do so, new products get developed a lot faster. Finland still relies on macroeconomics, creating unions and buying stock but then leaving the details up to individuals. My opponent opposes unions, so why are they using Finland as an example?

Every huge new product has come from innovation. If similar effects were achievable through socialism, then we should see similar new products being developed in command economies, but we don't. The only socialist country in the world right now is North Korea, and earlier socialist countries weren't much better at this.

These are the main reasons economists don't take socialism seriously. The incentive to innovate, predict demand, and invest only exists under capitalism. This fact has not been challenged. Even if the politicians elected had the best of intentions, which is doubtful even in most democracies, the knowledge necessary to predict market demand does not exist. Economists who study the market readily admit they cannot predict recessions or boom and bust cycles.

The government can aim for low employment and other macroeconomic goals, but these are not ends in themselves. When it comes to getting things people want in the hands of consumers, socialism can't keep up with capitalism. We'd expect this given our modern understanding of economics and what we've seen in socialist countries. There are no surprises here. Corruption is strongly correlated with unnecessary government intervention, and free markets have saved lives.

Socialism is not any one government policy or institution. Socialism is an economic system that puts every facet of the economy in the hands of politicians. If the government fails in any industry, there is no second chance. There is no alternative product. Monopolies in socialism suffer all the same problems as monopolies in capitalism. The choice here is clear.

The imagery my opponent puts forth continues to be inaccurate. Skipping over repeated remarks as if specific concerns are not addressed. Using a single philosophy to depict socialism despite a wider variety existing, like

In this debate, socialism is defined as a A)command economy where all the means of production, distribution, and exchange A) are owned and regulated by the federal government and B) democratically elected  C) officials

A)  there is no requirement for govt. to own ALL portions of an industry within provided definition. Consider corporations whose owners are based on stock ownership. Any socialist govt. can own 80% (or 51%) of all industries,  provide limited capital to citizens, and control production through ownership. All while not banning innovation from a limited private sector and govt. owned incentive programd. This is not your average representation of socialism but remains true to the provided definition. 

But how can socialism predict demand? I said this before. Using the same methods used by businesses today! Finland is doing this now, among other countires. 

We do not see this in all examples of Socialism because socialism includes variety and sometimes contradicting way philosophies that do not make building wealth the primary goal.

They look at equality, not equity. Making distribution important for satisfying needs not sell as much as possible to maximize profits.

Socialism my opponent often refers to also developed in a different economy and culture, where peasants traded for goods more than money. America's transition would not have same result. 

Therefore I provided examples to demonstrate an image to what govt. intervention can look like across every industry. Do I need to provide examples for every industry? No.

Examples have to be specific to demonstrate how America can use, and in some cases have used, socialism to better American lives. That socialism can adapt to american needs. 

I am limited to 4000 words too. =)

B) there can be democratic means within socialism as well. The people's voice does not need to be quite and have everything decided upon by a single political party. So yes. Deviore communism if  socialism needs to adapt to something different for America. 

C) officials involved with decision making is not limited to politicians either. Scientists, economists, philosophers, and more may be voted for or hold positions to influence innovation, economic stability, and more. 

"A minimum wage is possible under capitalism. Under socialism, it's unaffordable."
A.) most extreme example of socialism, all wages are minimum wage. 
B.) This statement does not consider that american govt. would aquire more wealth in its transition to socialism.  
 C) minimum wage has been considered bad for capitalism. (increase costs). 

Finland is not socialist, but its not capitalist either. I am argueing for moving away from capitalism.  The article shows socialist reforms that have helped Finland and can help america transition to socialism at a larger scale. Which Finland is.  Such a transition doesn't happen over night. People should see that part by part it is not scarry. 

 Especially when I argue that socialism can include private innovation because socialism is not restricted as one may wish. Why is my opponent saying it is?  

Government does & can predict what consumers want if it needs to. Communist and capitalist govts do not need to. If "most businesses are terrible at this"  why demand it in this debate?  
Round 4
If you've made it this far, I congratulate you. Unfortunately, I think my opponent has switched to defending welfare programs and limited government intervention instead of socialism. To be consistent with the definition in the description, for a government to own ALL the means of production, there can be no private sector. Companies cannot build factories, invest, etc. without access to the means of production. There may be versions of capitalism that are inaccurately described as "socialism," but those are not the subject of this debate.

I stated already that businesses today are bad at predicting demand; capitalism only works because there are so many competing businesses and only the best rise to the top. But the government is essentially too big to fail. And even if it were possible, there's no reason that politicians would be motivated to be as economically efficient as the private sector. Corruption is common in politics, and I don't think anyone looks at politicians and thinks "we should give them more power."

My opponent says scientists and philosophers can be elected to hold positions, but people elected to hold positions are just known as politicians. Are we electing scientists, philosophers, and economists today? Or do belligerent con men always seem to rise to the top? The economists my opponent will rely on are already saying that socialism is impossible. And even if the smartest people were in charge, no one business has successfully innovated in every industry at once. The government has to weigh the demand for completely unrelated products when an organic market does this better and more efficiently.

The version of socialism defended by the opposition in this debate is simply not feasible. If it were implemented, we'd be working twice as hard to predict demand only to achieve mediocre results. In an organic economy, this is not an issue. As soon as more people want a product, the price goes up.

Again, the government can already pass laws (minimum wage, price controls, etc.), and most democratic societies have not enacted socialism because it would lead to worse living standards for everyone. Again, the only place socialism is in practice today is North Korea. Other countries have dictators, but living standards are even worse in North Korea because the economy can't produce value efficiently. All it takes is a few bad government regulations to ruin an economy (think Venezuela). If we hand all economic power to the government, we pretty much guarantee government overreach.

Sometimes the government already passes ineffective economic policies. There's a balance here, and the version of socialism I am opposing is simply unrealistic. My opponent wants to "move away from capitalism," but they have to defend socialism as defined in the description. Socialism does not provide innovation, and it certainly does not provide "private innovation" as my opponent states. Innovation is a privilege found only in capitalist countries.

So regardless of the morality of wealth redistribution, regardless of if excess taxation is just, socialism simply wouldn't achieve what it sets out to do. Every economic class has suffered under socialism, and every command economy we've seen has been notoriously terrible at giving consumers what they want. The irony is that if socialists want money without working for it, they could have their cake and eat it too with capitalism and welfare. But socialists got greedy, and greed only helps the economy under capitalism.


Unfortunate that my opponent is not applying 2 major parts of this debate correctly. 
A. The definition
We can see that by referencing north korea, along with their argument in whole, socialism must be & always is communism. This is not true. One main contrast is that under socialism, individuals can still own property. 

Wealth and industry is communally owned and managed by elected officials. Where as communism restricts access to wealth and industry and there are no elected officials. This among reasons my opponent has listed, (i.e. referencing karl marx in first round) communism fails. However, I do not need to argue against this and have not since 1st round because communism is only one example for a socialist society. 

As said in round 2. "We see another attempt to restrict what socialism could be."  

I have been just as consistent with my approach to the definition of socialism and in seeking accuracy in the debate topic. 

B. The topic 
Would socialism on a large scale be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism? 
Finland is prime example to why the answer is no because the socialism in Finland is on a large scale. "Why?" Because the topic is only looking at socialism on a large scale, not "america becoming a socialist state "  

Although finland accomplishes in providing a no answer, it does not fit the provided definition. Therefore I must argue for a socialist state, which by definition (as explained above and in previous round) allows limited private ownership. 

The socialist america I have argued for checks off the both topic and definition qualifications. The community would own and manage (via voting) wealth, allowing limited ownership. The community would own industry through the state (similar to employee owned companies), allowing limited private ownership. The community via votes places officials in seats to help maintain economic policies and more. This is socialism. 

There are many countries that apply socialism to their needs. American needs are different which means I can not define each possible policy or how it will explicitly look. Ethiopia is not Bolivia. Portugal is not Sri Lanka. And so on and so forth. We can, however see how we should keep an open mind to the multiple possible ways socialism may be applied within the u.s. 

As my opponent argued against a restricted version of socialism, socialism today grows in popularity because today's system is viewed as broken. 
More advocates see an increasing need to move away from today's mixed economy.  So be happy. Smile a little more, with socialism today. =)

Round 5
My opponent's previous round was less than 3,500 characters, which means I could forfeit all remaining rounds and win. But I'll keep arguing for fun.

There are a few basic things to correct, but other than that, I think I've made the problems with socialism pretty clear. I don't like that this debate has become largely semantic, but I'll still take a win any way I can get it. I encourage voters to read the description, where I have made the definition of socialism used in this debate quite clear.

My opponent seems to be flip-flopping on the definition of socialism. As long as we agree that the means of production and distribution are owned solely by the government, then there is no room for privately owned businesses. As my opponent says, wealth and industry are managed by the government. So their examples of countries like Norway or government programs alongside corporations are inconsistent with the version of socialism defined in the description. I'm not restricting the definition of socialism any further than what's described in the rules of this debate.

But my opponent proceeds to ignore this description and gives Finland as an example. Again. Finland is not socialist [1]. The government does not own all the means of production and distribution; some of that is controlled privately. America already has many of the programs my opponent is arguing for, so it seems they've been making more of an argument for keeping things the way they are than for switching to socialism.

I've already argued about the problems with actual socialist states, and my opponent doesn't seem to disagree, which means this debate has largely come down to them not paying attention to the description. I don't love winning on semantics, but I think I've made a good case for preferring mixed economies to socialism. On the other hand, my opponent says we should move away from mixed economies and then links to an article that uses mixed economies like Canada to argue that somehow a socialist command economy will work. One of the article's arguments for socialism is, and I'm not making this up, "Millennials love it."

My opponent has proposed various government programs, some of which may achieve their intended effect and some of which are likely to backfire long-term. Again, we need to be careful of the "pretense of knowledge" that Hayek warned about. But applying some of these programs, or even all of them, is not the subject of this debate. My opponent has to argue that total government control of the means of production will yield results as good as or better than America's current form of capitalism. And the facts are against them.

Again, socialist countries can't predict consumer demand. Socialist countries consistently yield poorer living standards than capitalism and have shortages. Norway is not socialist, but North Korea is. Opening markets has saved billions of lives. The living standards under total economic government control have not been disputed, so I don't think I need to press this point very much.

I wish we could have had a more in-depth discussion about command economies and handing all industries over to the government, but it is likely that most people who use the word "socialism" are not really defending socialism in its original form. I tried to be specific in the description to avoid this problem, but I suppose that doesn't matter now. If I said anything else, it would just be repeating what I've already established—namely, that socialism on a large scale would be worse for society than America's current form of capitalism.

Face palm* all this time I was worried about 4000 and time limits. 

I can address any questions in the comment section. Otherwise I am confident the debate as a whole was on my side. Since I lost on technicality, I don't have issue in saying I never supported socialism before. Research was constant in every step taken.

I used websites like britannica, investopedia, and webster-merriam as foundation for developing points. Then looked at news articles and other sites to develop an approach.  

I did not want the first round to be a reaction to everything my opponent said. There was more importance to show that people choose govt. types for more than just how it effects the economy. Relying on examples to express how socialism would do more good then harm was key. Thus I chose some examples as to how it already has helped. I needed to warm readers up to socialism but also move away from any bias perception. I.e. communism and national socialism/fascism. 

This bias was in the first round as opponent mentioned karl marx. I never needed to argue against these points because that is not socialism America needed to be. But I am unsure how well I did to navigate away.

As we entered later rounds, I did stumble replies. This brought my attention to debate definition. Although I never wanted to narrow socialism down to a single example (which I repeated many times), I felt compelled to justify why my example would work. 

The debate definition provides no explicit requirement that prevents a socialist govt. from having a private sector. I looked at definitions used to define socialism. Command economy seemed to be in my way, but even that produced exceptions. I use the following definitions:

I could have just mentioned national socialism. Everyone associates that with nazism, so I was not compelled to. 

I tried to stay true to my first round tactics too. Although it stemmed from memory, there has been several news articles about the happiest places on earth. This deals with stress levels and health and govt. Now Finland I knew would be a gamble but it was number one. So I never identified finland as socialist but used it to pave that road to consider socialism as not a bad thing to use. If its not bad to use then there is no worries going the full distance. 

In previous round, I knew I had to, so I did. I made comment directly about it not fitting both requirements within a debate and that it is not identified as socialist state by economists. This was the right move in my mind, but what would voters think? 

Another challenged I faced was not reasserting everything I had already stated. Sometimes I wanted to repeat myself. More importantly, each side of the debate needs to show the audience how things will work. For example, just saying and then repeating, "socialism cant do that," or "socialism can do that," does not show why someone should actually believe such a statement. So in previous round I did the darndest to explain how a version of socialism, which was supposed to reinforce the idea socialism could be anything, could work. Did I do justice to the effort? 

How did I do overall?

I invite everyone to vote but also add your thoughts in the comment section. Please consider constructive criticism