Good Intentions and Flawed Arguments

Why is it that every time I debate a Socialist on the Capitalism vs. Socialism argument, they defend Socialism with their good “intent”, in the face of complete historical failure, save one example (so far), Sweden. But it’s not good enough for Capitalism to work every time it’s applied, save a relative few abuses. Let me say it another way: Socialism can apparently be superior even though it fails on a whole, but can find an exception where it worked. But Capitalism fails if even one exception is found, even though it works on a whole.

Socialism is inherently flawed: It rewards those who will not to work, and you might have an idealistic few who will work anyhow.
Capitalism has some flaws: Even though it rewards people for good products or services, sometimes abuses get rewarded for a relatively short time before the market reacts to them.

The only exception to the successes of Capitalism is the rare abuse.
The only exception to the abuses of Socialism is the rare success.

I think I’ve said it enough different ways. Maybe one of them will get through. Well, maybe one more. As I like to say: The only flaw in Socialism is that it rarely works.