The concept (ideally) of communism is more beneficial to its people than that of capitalism.

Time for my last speech. Thrilling! I'll be responding to your points 1 by 1 and then I will summarize. "Actually the reverse is the case. Competition breeds efficiency. The less efficient production methods eventually lose out, unlike government, which sustains inefficiency. There's no direct market feedback, no correction, no penalty for bad decisions." >>Three things. 1). You're still competing on a world market, thus there is still competition. Your market has to shape itself in order to compete with other competitors in the world market. However it can do this more efficiently because, like I said, the money isn't split between 8 companies of which half are going bankrupt because the other half are running them out of business. 2). Also all things become more efficient with time. People find quicker ways of doing thing, they find easier way to do things, they develop new technology to make the job easier. While competition is a source of efficiency it is not the end all. There are other ways to become efficient. 3). Competition has its drawbacks. Ever read The Jungle? Do you realize what our meat industry is like at this point in time? People cut corners to make their products cost less. This kind of competition can lead to unsafe products which in turn danger human lives. Human lives outweigh effeciency. "Competition also spawns innovation. You never see new technology from the commies." >>Uhhh... Russia? Weren't they competing for world leader with us at one point? Cuba? #1 health system in the world? But no, these are not ideal communisms by far. So two points. 1). How many famous scientists do you know also happen to be filthy rich? I can't think back in history and name very many. It obviously wasn't the money scientists were going for when they decided to invent something, or come up with a new theory. It was their own personal drive to do something that they found interesting. This is the benefit of ideal communism. Each person does what they most nearly would like to do. Yes there are a lot of people who don't particularly have an aspiration and wouldn't mind being the laundry guy for 8 hours a day as long as they were getting payed as much as everyone else, however there are also the people who are interested in advanced physics, chemistry, science, that would enjoy spending their time inventing things. Ideal communism is the most conducive to anybody attempting to develop new technology. 2). Once again instead of having 8 different companies all compete for the same goal we instead have the combined wealth of all 8 that the communism can use to fund developing new technologies. 8x the power of a normal company, just as much motivation to do it (have to beat the rest of the world). Communism has the resources to do this above any other government type. "How does the government determine which production method or product is best without prior competition?" >>Three points, three methods. 1). History wouldn't be bad, look to other countries, see what they do/have done best. 2). There is competition globally, if our product doesn't sell well obviously it is not best, we need to change something. 3). Are the people happy? If the people are not happy perhaps the products the communist government is giving them are not up to par. "Commie run governments never dominate the market without using slave labor and poor, dangerous working conditions." >>We're talking ideal communism hear, not the communist governments of the past. Notice I specifically put ideal in the resolution. If you didn't want to argue ideals then don't bother taking the debate. "Number one goal is to hold on to power. Government-industry relations are incredibly corrupt with pay-offs, bribes, a recipe designed more to sustain power than find the most efficient production methods." >>Once again you are applying your opinion to past examples of "communist" governments. This has no ground in our current debate. My ideal communism would have to start out small with people who agreed that the government was the best type. It takes a mildly different approach to life than your quasi-capitalism. Instead of getting rich being instilled as the country dream, benefiting society as a whole would be the #1 dream. This is probably the point where you are going to say people are inherently selfish, and always want to be wealthy and the government has nothing to do with people wanting to get rich. I disagree let me show you a couple of other things the government has told you are good and have swayed your opinion. 1. Get rich, American dream. 2. Marry young, have kids, support your wife, it would be shameful if you didn't. 3. Go to school. 4. Go to college. 5. Get a job after school, pay for yourself, get rich. While I do not think all of the above things are particularly bad they are all good examples of ways in which our society has influenced us. Ideal communism would help some of these, would change others. 1. Help society, be happy, Communist dream. 2. Marry whenever, everyone has a fine standard of living, you don't have to support anyone (monetarily). 3. Go to school, its free. 4. Go to college, its also free. 5. Get a job you want, enjoy yourself doing it, benefit society. Society will in turn benefit you. So, in summary. In ideal communism each person is influenced by society, much like in our current system, to believe that helping others is a greater goal. Thus the societal norm, the societally excepted thing to do, is to benefit society. Money is not an issue as everyone has a high standard of living to begin with. Thus the system works. "Liberty? Freedom of speech and of religion? Timely healthcare services? I've never seem an example of that. " >>Once again your are going off examples not ideals. Liberty is fine. Freedom of speech and of religion is also fine. Timely health care service, definitely. The number one thing you need to remember though is that this country works on the idea that its citizens support it. If the citizens do not like it, or feel that some form of their liberties are being denied them they have the ability to leave. However in a system where everyone has a high standard of living. Free education, and can basically choose what job they would like. I see not a great deal of reasons why anyone would bother complaining. "To increase military spending and line the pockets of the elites in the politburo." >>Past examples, not ideal. Why would an ideal communism need a military spending? Happy people don't normally invade other people or so I've noticed. Also, what elites are you talking about!? In a system where everyone has the same benefits its a little hard to have elites. In the sense you are speaking of anyways. So now onto the major benefit of communism. My opponent spends his entire last speech talking about money and the problems with it. However the benefit of communism don't just entail money, they also have to do with the standard of living. Communism allows for everyone to coexist at a high standard of living. Unlike modern day America where 90% of the wealth belongs to 1% of the population. Instead in ideal communism 90% of the wealth belongs to 90% of the population. This is the largest benefit of communism, it stops people from being in poverty, it prevents deaths. In present day America people die because of greed, this to me is unacceptable. Thanks, ready for your last speech.