Round 1-Acceptance, Round 2-Cases, Round 3-Rebuttals, Round 4-Defense(No new arguments)
I will be defending Free Market Capitalism under the Reagan Era, while Con defends socialism. This debate will specifically talk about America.
A big problem with Reagan capitalism is its trickle down economics. It just doesn't work; when the rich have more money they don't shop at small businesses more but instead either hoard there money or spend it on extravagances. This means there is no way for their wealth, which makes up a substantial amount of America's wealth, to get to the poorer people because they don't work at the places the rich are buying from. The wealth never trickles down and thus this system of economics only benefits the rich. Capitalism does not reward hard work the way it claims it does. Instead, the wealthy are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and no matter how hard the poor work they simply can not beat this kind of privilege.
This round was supposed to be a rebuttal; however, I have nothing to rebut, so instead I will make another case. Unlike a socialist government, private corporations don't have the worker's best interest in mind, and instead only care about making money. This means the workers are always getting the short end of the stick. On the world stage, The U.S. is way more conservative than pretty much any other first world country. When Germany, and Japan had their militaries taken away after WWII, they were able to invest the money that would go to their militaries into their economies and they have had incredible success with their economies. When you invest in the people it pays off.
As my opponent has been forfeiting the last few rounds I have nothing to defend, and because the outline of this debate says no new arguments I'll just say this: Capitalism really only benefits the rich, who evade their taxes through tax shelters and loopholes, and leave it to the middle class to pick up the slack all while complaining about how they (the rich) should pay less in taxes.