This picture is valid.

Many thanks to wjmelements for continuing this excellent debate - I must say I am enjoying it. Now to rebut the points he made as follows: SOCIALISM Collectivism allows the provision of vital resources such as food, water and electricity according to need and is thus beneficial to society as a whole, not just to those who can afford to pay the market rate under capitalism. The most common criticism of collectivism, as my opponent pointed out, is that it does not financially incentivise individuals to work harder and invest in research and development. However, this is not true. There are indirect rewards of hard work and creating new technologies under socialism. For example, individuals whose endeavour benefits the state will be rewarded with superior housing, better cars, luxury vacations, etc. Meanwhile, those who fail to discharge their responsibilities to the state by refusing to work diligently will have their benefits reduced or withdrawn. FISHING My opponent is right to say that the fish stocks of Lake Victoria are depleted. Indeed, as the result of over-fishing by the trawlers supplying mass producers of frozen fish products, seas and oceans around the world are running dangerously low on stocks. That's why most countries, including those surrounding Lake Victoria, operate fishing quotas in order to protect fish stocks. However, the permitted fish catches are allocated to the large-scale producers, which is different from collectivism as my opponent suggested it represents, and these quotas have the net effect of depriving subsistence fishermen of the fish that have traditionally sustained their families. HOUSE PRICES Okay, my opponent has questioned the validity of my source, so here's another one – Rightmove.co.uk: the British equivalent of Realtor.com Here's a search of 3 bedroom homes in my area: http://www.rightmove.co.uk... You'll see the very cheapest property sold for ï¿½300,000 / $444,000. I also did a search on Relator.com of my opponent's home town of Spring, TX. http://www.realtor.com... Here you can see that the cheapest 3 bedroom home is ï¿½30,000 / $44,000. What's more, it is much nicer than the one in London and, furthermore, it is detached rather than terraced and has more land. Even so, it is ten times cheaper. However, people in Texas don't earn ten times less than people in London. Here's a wage comparison: Administration Assistant: Texas - $32k (ï¿½22k) p.a. London - ï¿½20k ($30k) p.a. Software Engineer: Texas - $88k (ï¿½60k) p.a. London - ï¿½42k ($63k) p.a. http://www.payscale.com... http://www.payscale.com... So, you can see that the rates of pay in Texas and London are almost identical, yet the cost of houses in London are many multiples that of those in Texas. That means, that after the mortgage or rent has been paid, people in London have far less to spend than their cousins in the Lone Star State. CAPITALIST AFRICA. I think my opponent both agree that poverty in Africa is associated with war, famine and political corruption. Not all of these are the fault of capitalism, of course, but there are many examples of corporations exploiting the vulnerability of the African people. For example, in Nigeria western companies drill for oil off the coast of Nigeria yet the locals receive very little or no financial benefit from these operations. Indeed, corruption and misuse actually fuels violence in the Delta. http://www.hrw.org... Similarly, in Angola and Botswana the mining of minerals such as diamonds by Western companies leads the further armed conflicts. http://www.nytimes.com... The point is, under capitalism, a corporation's primary responsibility is to their shareholders – their priority is to make as much money as legally possible, without consideration for the consequences their business activities may have on impoverished people in Africa. THE PICTURE There are a finite amount of food resources in the world. Instead of gorging himself, the fat kid in the picture could have just eaten his recommended daily intake of food. This would have kept him healthier and also allowed less land to be used to grow the crops that fed the cattle that were minced to make his hamburgers, thus freeing the land to grow crops for impoverished locals. The fact that the fat kid has more prosperous parents than the kid in Africa doesn't mean they are morally entitled to indulge his every greedy whim; indeed rather the opposite is true from a health point of view. In a meritocracy, all children would have the same opportunity to succeed in life. As it is, under capitalism, whereas a white kid with wealthy parents may prosper in the West, many children in Africa will be lucky if they even make it to adulthood. If this is capitalism in action, I don't think it should be celebrated. Thank you.