This picture is valid.

I must thank Brain_eggleston for this engaging debate. Looking up realty was perhaps the most interesting part. SOCIALISM My opponent has addressed incentives to work or innovate, while my arguments concerned the means of production. Common capital is accessed by multiple independently acting individuals, each of whom has no interest in maintaining the productivity of the capital, so the capital deteriorates in its usefulness. This has been demonstrated in collectivized grazing land and public lakes. My opponent has not refuted this. ([1]) Still, because my opponent has brought up the incentive to work hard, I will address them. There is the loophole that because anyone can get their needs fulfilled regardless of hard work, there is no need for the worker to do anything at all. A leisurely life without luxuries will be preferable to a hard-working life with them for the multitude, and gradually, the wealth will decline. Why work when you don't have to? The apparent solution is to coerce the workers by threatening to remove their food or by threatening with violence, neither of which are particularly socialist. Such a system would be considered a violent slavery, in which the worker seeks every day the approval of his master so that he might end up with the necessities to make it to the next day. ([2]) FISHING My opponent has not contended my proposition for Lake Victoria to be divided into private fisheries. The current state is effectively a collectivist system, again, because the lake is public, and the capital is managed by a governing body that rations its resources. My opponent concedes it is this way, he merely claims that this isn't collectivist because the receiving parties aren't under the direct control of the state, although this is entirely irrelevant to the scenario, because the lake is not privatized, and so it has experienced the tragedy of the commons. HOUSE PRICES (At first I'd misread and thought my opponent had found my house. That was creepy for a moment.) I will disagree with my opponent on the quality of the housing he is presenting. The cheapest property sold [3] includes the following: "porch, hallway, three bedrooms, reception room, kitchen/breakfast room, bathroom suite, guest cloakroom, good decorative order, gas central heating, fitted carpets, integral garage and south-facing rear garden," and is clearly of acceptable luxury, while the cheapest house in my opponent's Spring, TX link [4] goes for $33,000, not $30,000, and is described as "NEEDS WORK" and is offered " 'AS-IS' ", reiterating that the seller will make "no repairs" and that the buyer should be some sort of "handyman." In other words, the house from Texas sourced by my opponent is not "much nicer than the one in London" as my opponent may argue, but a piece of crap. This negates the point he was trying to make about the difference in weight of the mortgage/rent burden. Still, the reason UK's property values are so high are likely governmental (the UK is less capitalist than the US, by objective standards [4]). Economist Thomas Sowell attributes construction restrictions [6] with many high-property-value areas: "In places where the cost of the land exceeds the cost of constructing housing, height restrictions can mean that much higher rents or condominium prices must be charged." [6] He goes on: "Where builders are allowed to construct homes and apartments without severe government restrictions, even growing populations and rising incomes do not cause housing prices to shoot up, because the supply of newly constructed housing keeps up with the growing demand, as in Las Vegas or Houston.... There is little opportunity for housing prices to continue to greatly exceed construction and land costs in communities without severe restrictions on building or a monopolistic collusion among builders." [7] Clearly, capitalism is not to blame, but government intervention. CAPITALIST AFRICA My opponent's sources all contradict his case. The locals in Nigeria receive no benefit from their government (not from the corporation) because of government corruption. [8] From my opponent's source: "Many state and local officials in Rivers have squandered or stolen public money that could have gone toward providing vital health and education services." [8] This reiterates that government, not capitalism is responsible for the plethora of problems in Africa. I can go on. The blood diamond mining in Angola and was not done by western companies, but by political groups such as UNITA [9]. In Botswana, the country's economic and social growth has been significantly helped by De Beers, a diamond selling corporation [10]. In conclusion, my opponent has been incapable of linking the poverty in Africa to capitalism and has had to twist his own sources to contradict my case. THE PICTURE Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the disease in Africa. This was conceded in the first round. Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the civil wars in Africa. This was proven despite my opponent's misrepresentations. Capitalism cannot be held responsible for the poverty in Africa. This was attributed to the aforementioned wars and diseases, despite my opponent's attempts to pin it elsewhere. Therefore, the picture is invalid, and misrepresents the realities of capitalism. Thank you. SOURCES [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu... [3] http://www.rightmove.co.uk... [4] http://www.realtor.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Sowell, Thomas. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Page 28. [7] Sowell, Thomas. Economic Facts and Fallacies. Page 30-31. [8] http://www.hrw.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://www.nytimes.com...