On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

For some reason, when going to post my argument, nearly all of it vanished. It was cut away, despite being under the 8,000 character limit. I don't know why...I've become completely unmotivated to re-write it. I'll copy and paste what's left of it here. Please be aware that my opponent has made several false accusations this round. "CON ignores economic concepts..." I have addressed the issue of scarcity by pointing out resources are not all that scarce. I used food, our arguably greatest need, as an example. I also pointed out that my opponent's only argument for the "wealth-generating effects" of Capitalism is his comparison of Capitalist countries to nations like China or North Korea. This argument however is irrelevant, as those nations were not Communist. "Economic wealth is not just arbitrary..." I agree, and it is for that reason I am opposed to Capitalism, as it restricts whom may obtain goods and whom my not; another point of mine that you did not contest. "CON’s only argument is that capitalism is needed to get rid of these evil known as “work”." This is completely false. My opponent is misrepresenting my case. What I have criticized is the manner in which Capitalism arranges those who work, and those who do not. I have pointed out that in a Capitalist society, those who work are not working in conditions which are profitable to human happiness. Often time individuals are forced to work places where they have no desire to work, or work in conditions that are exploitative or unfair, not due to nature, but due to the set-up of Capitalism. Since economic systems can be altered, by opponent cannot claim that this should just be "accepted", because unlike nature, Capitalism is avoidable. "...communism does not seek to compensate people for work." This is, again, false. The difference between Capitalism and Communism is that people do not work out of monetary incentive. They are not aiming for "profit". They are aiming for self-fulfillment, and unlike under Capitalism, decide for themselves how goods should be produced, and how to distribute them. Communism seeks to compensate workers by their dictates, instead of by whomever happens to "own" the means of production.My opponent has frequently misrepresented my case elsewhere, but I haven't the characters to go over everything.Let's talk about my opponent's case. One of the reasons this debate has been, in my mind, so unproductive, is that nearly all of my opponent's criticisms have violated our RI agreement. My opponent has repeatedly tried to criticise Communism, by comparing Capitalism to Socialist nations and economies (even going so far as to compare the US to some of the EXACT nations I listed in RI). We agreed not to do this, and yet, my opponent did so anyway on numerous occasions. These arguments are irrelevant. They have no bearing on this debate what so ever.My opponent has also attempted to, in several locations, be intellectually dishonest in whom he credits for certain merits of Capitalism, such as an 8 hour work day, or minimum wage laws. These institutions that my opponent praises? They are SOCIALIST ideas and insitutions, not Capitalist ones. In essence, by praising these things, my opponent has argued AGAINST his own case.My opponent also has tried to make certain ouright ridiculous arguments, such as this gem in this round:"I demonstrated how CON is wrong about the nature of capitalism in round 2."This exact argument Pro is talking about, was nothing more than a few short lines, to which I gave my criticism to in my following R2 post. Is Pro honestly attempting to refute my argument, by simply pointing at the argument that was criticized to begin with? That makes no sense.Pro has also violated another one of our RI agreements, that of frequently criticizing the capability of Communism. For instance, in this round, where he criticizes Communism on the grounds that people would not want to share.Whether or not people WILL do something has no bearing on wheher or not doing it would be BETTER. Please keep this in mind when looking over my opponent's argumments.There are two final points I really want to drive home. That is the idea of need-based freedom, and that of Capitalism as a system of exploitation. First of all, my opponent's supposid "dismantling" of by need-based freedom argument is unwarrented. They took my position, and misrepresented it, by claiming I would remove the urinary system. That is not at all an accurate portrayal of what I was saying. My opponent also tries to claim that Communism cannot guarentee a person will have thier needs met. And yes, there is truth to this, you cannot guarenteee it 100%. Freak events may always possibly occur. But those are unnatural occurences, and desevre no consideration. Further more, while nature may not be able to be avoided, economic systems CAN be avoided.My opponent has not been able to justify the lack of freedom under Capitalism (except by pointing to Socialist institutions). He has not actually addressed the problem of creating a winner/loser system out of peoples livelihood. He has not actually addressed the problem of people not having their needs properly met under Capitalism. This is because, he can't. Capitalism NECESSITATES this kind of system. Capitalism NECESSITATES inequality, and suffering. Without losers, you cannot have a competative system. Pro ignores this, because he knows it would be damning to his case. He tries to work around, by once again, pointing to things like homless shelters, or health care, or other such things. But these are all, once again, Socialist ideas. My opponent cannot have Capitalism take credit for Socialist institutions.Capitalism leaves you in chains, forcing most of the population to constantly worry about meeting their needs on an unecessary level, and therefore, rendering them in many situations delayed or entirely incapable of pursuing thier intersts. By forcing one another to compete to satisfy thier basic needs, Capitalism prevents people from actually being free. This is barbaric.My opponent also glosses over the fact that Capitalism is a system of economic exploitation. Indeed, rather than try and refute it, he tries to JUSTIFY it, by pointing out the success of Capitalism to Socialist nations. He has not tried to argue the fact that Capitalism is, by virtue of it's set-up, a slave-like system, where workers are forced to sell themselves to "owners", and only recieve a fraction of the value their labour generates. This is, as it has been called, slavery. Wage-slavery. This form of rampant expoitation of the working class is immoral. It cannot be reasonably justified.My opponent has also failed to adequaely counter my argument about Capitalism being biased towards decreasing human well-being. Because Capitalism seeks to gain profit, not meet human needs, it is neither truly interested in meeting the needs of it's workers or consumers. When it comes to the issue of extending toil or extending leasiure time, Capitalism will ALWAYs be biased towards the former, just so it may increase profit. Likewise, Capitalism will never truly meet the consumers needs efficiently, due to the fact that meeting a need is detrimental to profit. This systems is set up in such a way that meetings needs is secondary to making profit.Communism does not suffer from these problems. The whole idea of Communism is that it is a society wherein everyone is free to develope themselves as they choose, and everyone's needs are met as a result of the lack of constraints on aquiring goods which meet needs. How anyone can say that this form of system is inferior to one which actively denies people access to needs for arbitrary reasons, is completely illogical.Whether or not my opponent, or any of you, think that Communism is possible, has no bearing on whether or not it would be BETTER. Yes, it would. There is no doubt about it. A system that necesitates losers will ALWAYS be worse for human well-being.