1984 vs The Hunger Games

The vast majority of my opponents previous points are worth the read, especially if a voter does not have previous knowledge of one of the topics discussed, and I concede what I will consider his 'similar' section. I will also concede the differences section with one exception, a section of part C. Again I think these are important and well worth the read. A) The logical fallacy in my opponents argument here is that he assumes that since we know how to war, we can create a society like Panem. However, this is not the case. There have been a vast number of wars in the history of man, but not once has a society like Panem been created. However, whether it is Stalin's Soviet Union or Nazi Germany (I was taught Nazi Germany, but the society that Orwell was attempting to parallel is really arbitrary), the important part is Orwell was describing an existing society. Since I have granted to my opponent to use the Soviet Union, let us look at the similarities. 1. The thought police and the KGB are very similar. 2. The Ministry of Love is comparable to the headquarters of the KGB. 3. There were posters of big brother all across Oceania just as there were posters of Stalin all across the Soviet Union 4. Lots of Military parades in both 1984 and the Soviet Union 5. Both the Soviet Union and 1984 relied both on propaganda and the deprivation of the common person. Thus, the Soviet Union is extremely similar to 1984 and thus my opponent claiming we do not have a blueprint for such a society is false. B) While I agree reality TV is already a part of the world, Oceania does not require reality TV as it relies on much more effective forms of mind control. C) There is no proof in 1984 that the societies of Eastasia and Eurasia actually exist. Their existence is only claimed in Goldstein's book as well as endless amount of propaganda. However, the propaganda of other superstates would be necessary to show the triumph of Oceania. Also, Winston finds out from O'Brien that Goldstein's book is not actually written by Goldstein, but by a committee, and although O'Brien says that the book is true as a description, he has deceived Winston countless times, and this could easily be another deception. The lack of proof of these states might mean that Oceania does indeed stand alone. Even if my opponent does prove that these did exist, I do not see how it follows that it would be rarer to have 3 superstates that would war in certain areas. Indeed, throughout history it has seemed there has been 2-3 major countries that have controlled the vast majority of the power in the world, and whether it was the African territories or American continent, or the Middle East, these powers have always seemed to find a place to war. D) My opponent seems to stray a bit from the debate topic here. He claims "That the people in these dystopias will be exposed to ideas from our own societies" The important part for our debate is the rise of the society, not sustaining. The people being exposed to outside ideas might cause the society not to be sustainable, but that doesn't mean it has not risen. Similar how the Soviet Union could not stand, but it did arise. In Round 2 I claimed that my opponent would need to show either that Nazi Germany was not a parallel society to Oceania, or that a society similar to The Hunger Games has also arose. He sidestepped the argument slightly by claiming that one source has it as the Soviet Union, not Nazi Germany, this still does not defeat the idea that a society like 1984 has already risen, whereas a society like The Hunger Games has not.