America with the Socioeconomic choice of Communism

Normally I would ask for clarification in the comments when unclear about an instigators position. I'm going to take a bit of risk here and do that in round 1. This should be interesting since it's only a 3 round debate. I'm unclear on what your definition of communism is. It sounds like your actually defending socialism. I'll provide the following reference as a source of reviewing Pros resolution:http://www.diffen.com...I'd argue that communism has never been implemented in reality. I'm ok with Pro arguing either communism or socialism. However, without a clear resolution defined by round 2, I would be put in a bind since it's inappropriate for me to bring new arguments in round 3. I'd ask voters to consider this. With that out of the way, I'll ask a few clarifying questions. These are all based on the link given above. PhilosophyIs distribution of resources to the population based only on needs, or is it possible for someone to earn more based on their contribution?Is there any form of profit available to be earned, or is this all placed in the common pool for distribution?Does the philosophy depend on the idea of super-abundance brought be advanced technology?EconomicsIs there any private property?Are free markets allowed? Is there actual buying and selling of goods?Is there money? (Pro says yes in round 1 but I'm asking for confirmation because communism is typically described as being moneyless)Is 100% of the economy centrally planned?ArgumentsSuper-abundancePro's position seems to depend on some kind of super-abundance of goods. Pro's arguments appear to ignore the fact than humans have infinite wants while resources are limited. This is the ultimate challenge of any economic system. Capitalism, through it's system of supply and demand and market prices has shown success in accomplishing this. Communist (or rather socialist) countries have failed at this empirically.Health careIf this was simply a matter of making it free, politicians would have done this long ago. There are two issues: the first is that nothing is really free. Even if communism could be implemented, labor must be brought to bear in order to produce goods. Commodities, which are in limited supply, must be dug out of the ground. While money might not exchange hands, resources are still consumed. "Free" is just a way of hiding this and has the result of over-consumption. EducationThe same issues regarding education being free apply as in health care. In addition, Pro seems to take the position that, if education were free, there would be no illiteracy. However, in the United States, primary and secondary education is already "free". Pro will argue that the poor get a poor education, but this assume too much: for one thing, it places the fault completely on teachers and assumes students bear none of this fault. Second, it assumes an abundance of super-human teachers able to overcome students who show no real desire to learn.Classless, equal societyHumans have not shown they are capable of such a thing, except on a very small level and for a short time duration. There are many examples in history at attempts to do this and all have failed. I'd ask Pro to show us an example where this has not been the case.Solving TotalitarianismPro says that maintaining the right to keep and bear arms would keep totalitarianism in check. This has been shown to be empirically false. Pro's form of communism will necessitate centralized control of the economy. This centralized control also carries with it centralized enforcement of law. Governments thru out history have used this power to remove the right to bear arms and simply confiscate guns by military force, regardless of the constitution. Even democratic governments like Britain, who have a long history of the right to keep and bear arms, currently have vast restrictions on gun ownership.