Private property as a right

Pro didn't provide the full definition of private property from their source, which is important for this debate. "Private Property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities."What I'm arguing for is that making everything into collective property would not be a violation of any right guaranteed by the United States, as there is nothing specifically guaranteeing a right to be the sole owner of property. My opponent didn't offer any supreme court ruling or evidence that the 14th or 5th amendments guarantee specifically private property as a right. It says only property, whether it is collectively-owned or privately-owned property is not clear. So, my previous point still stands. The quote from the amendment he offered doesn't specify private property.As for the distinction between property and private property, what I was getting at before was that something could be owned by several individuals, such as workers, this is cooperative/collective property. Workers could own a business for example, instead of a single individual. This would make more property available for everyone since there is only so much property. Pro needs to offer evidence that private property, and not property in general, is a right. If it's the latter, then there is no problem with making property owned by a group of people, instead of a single individual. To make this simpler to understand: pro needs to show that it is a violation of rights for the government to make someone share property with their workers. The person still gets to own the property, they are just no longer the sole owner of it. Pro needs to prove that people have a right to sole ownership of property specifically. When I used the statistics about who owns property, I was trying to point out that there is no more property to own because people horde property, which would go against Locke's idea, which I will point out next.My opponent seemed to have missed a very key point, when I quoted "...no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others" from John Locke. In other words, property is no longer a right if there is not enough for everyone to be able to acquire through work. There is clearly not enough for everyone to have through work, since many working Americans(as pointed out before) do not own property. When I said I agree with that property is an acquired right, I mean property in general. Please don't add words to what I said. I never stated that private property was an acquired right, so I didn't agree with pro's position, that is why we are still having this debate. I didn't concede or anything like that. Pro still needs to show that private property specifically is a right.As for the 10th amendment, it doesn't guarantee just anything as a right, that is determined by the supreme court. For example, healthcare hasn't been ruled as a right, however in many countries it is a right. So, claiming that the 10th amendment would imply that specifically private property is a right needs evidence, such as a supreme court ruling saying that the 10th amendment makes private property specifically a right, or that the 14th or 5th amendments do. I contest pro's claim that the constitution explicitly says private property as a right. It would explicitly say "private property" but nowhere in the constitution is private right in front of property. Again, it only says property. That could mean collective property or it could mean private property. As long as one of those two exist, technically, it is not a violation of that amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;