Communism is an ineffective system and should be abolished

I'll start round 4 by stating that my opponent is clearly misguided. An ad hominem attack is when somebody says that the other persons argument is wrong because the person is stupid or has a history of being stupid. It's attacking the person instead of the argument but acting as if the argument has been attacked. Con has misunderstood the meaning of "ad hominem" and taken it as an attack on the person in general. This would be called an "insult", something which is justifiable when debating pubescent, hormonal, left-wing fundamentalist hipsters who use walls of text to hide glaring holes in their arguments. I've never specified who this specific insult is applied to. 1) Boom. You've admitted theirs a power structure "there is a form of a power structure" now, power structure implies hierarchy and hierarchy implies that people are "better" than each other. This system that you are proposing is not egalitarian. Now, with this in mind I again point you nations such as the USSR and North Korea (coat of arms of which you now have as your profile picture). If you had done your homework you would know that North Korea has a very wealthy elite and a very poor middle class[1]. This is one of the glaring holes which we can observe in Con's argument. Nations which Con supports are in fact contradicting the ideology that Con stands for. Look, I understand that communist ideology has been hammered into your brain. However, there is absolutely no need to bring this up the middle of a conversation to do with wether or not society is a social construct. Again, what Con has done is that he has avoided the actual topic and instead disguised his avoidance by writing massive un-related walls of text. I actually see where Con is coming from here, he believes that I think that there is a difference between the economy and the people just like he does. However, this isn't true. As I've expressed the economy and the people are interdependent and to argue that one of the pair is more important than the other is a straw-man. Relative to happiness rates we can observe something quite curious. Con has actually straight up lied about one of his sources. As we have observed throughout this debate I have made an effort to not cite sources so as to not get involved in a battle of statistics, however, I have in fact read my opponents sources. The GDMI index states that it's a measure of equality and distribution of wealth, not happiness. This leaves Uruguay and the Ukraine in roughly the same position (if not lower) than Thailand. Additionally the numbers have not been updated recently and may come from biased sources (government propaganda). 2)First of all the source Con has used to define commune is speaking about communities of hippies "unconventional lifestyles" not specifically communist communes. Secondly, if a community is to exist with a power structure in a certain area it will be a state. "Politically unified people occupying a definite territory" I've just explained why the Paris commune didn't work yet you continue to argue for it. You've also stated "anarchist aragon" anarchy does not imply communes and catalonia which existed in an interim period. Shinmin is a place in china, a highly corrupt communist nation. Honestly, I love Con's examples. THEY ALL FAIL. 3)I'm saying that people aren't born perfect, sorry for the confusion. 4)Still refuted. 5)People work so as to become prosperous, when you eliminate the possibility of becoming prosperous you remove the work. Simple. Misunderstanding of the meaning of "ad hominem" and tons of lies. I refuse to engage in a battle of statistics. Honestly, I love Con. Con does not know how much entertainment he has provided. Con is hilarious. However, con knows that con is a con-man.