Communism is an antiquaited, disproven political/economic system both morally and practically.

Round two:'"People for many years in Europe believed that the system of divine right and kingship would last for the rest of time"Right. Until the people figured out there was a better way that benefited THEM, not just the royals. Ditto Communism.'First you say that 'communism', if leaderless, would be chaotic and wouldn't work. Then you make the claim that 'communism' would have leaders and they would be oppressive.You are clearly redefining the term 'communism', after I have already defined both 'communism' and 'Communism', and attempting to contort the argument so that it is in your favor.Also, 'communism' is a system that is defined to benefit all people, and was created out of a reaction against industrial capitalism, which at the time only benefited the bourgeoisie (the rising capitalist class).Round 3:'Theories, not practice. And certainly not on the global scale you advocate.'The gift economy is far older than the barter economy, and was used by hunter-gatherers with relative success in pre-neolithic times[1].Mutual Aid is a system that has been observed amongst hundreds of animal species[2&3], inculding humans, and help keep said species alive.The Resource Based Economy was used far before the Monetary Based Economy, and was also used by Neolithic tribes.Also, just by saying something is a theory doesn't mean it won't work. Gravity, Quantum Physics, Evolution, all are 'theories', but a 'theory' is something that has a huge basis of logic behind it, and 'communism' is no different. '"If you don't recognize the difference that I stated between 'communism' and 'Communism', and also ignore the definition that I provided for such, then I win this debate "In order to 'win' a debate, you have to actually DEBATE the TOPIC at hand. You have done no such thing. You have run around in circles and claimed victory without addressing what the actual debate is about'I am not 'claiming victory' in any sense, I am informing you that you are not debating about the topic as I have defined. You did not define the terms 'communism' or 'Communism' in your beginning argument, so I defined it and sourced that definition.However, this entire debate you have been redefining and manipulating the topical term to use to your advantage. I don't think you understand. You are the one making a claim that, and I quote 'Communism is an antiquaited, disproven, political/economic system both morally and practically'.You have yet to prove such, I have provided counter-arguments to your claims, claims which are themselves not grounded with any sources, and you then say that I am not debataing the topic that you wanted to debate? You didn't even define the topical term in the opening argument.I have provided sources, you have none. I have provided sites showing that my form of 'communism' exists, and is not 'distorted'."since capitalism influenced people like Marx, that we can use this idea to show that humans are eventually going to want a different system of socio-economics to habitate in."No large group of people are going to agree what this 'different' system should be and for absolute certain the entire world population is not going to agree on a philosophy most wouldn't understand, would be a step down for the majority, AND do so without leaders or currency. Just because YOU think a system is right for everyone, doesn't mean the entire world population believes that, as would be required.They seem to have accepted capitalism as a global system, most 'Communist' countries, like China, are only 'Communist' in name, not in practice.I am not claiming that it is a system right for everyone, I am simply stating that it is an option when the current system of socio-economics that we have, capitalism, collapses. Then it could move in and take it's place."all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses."Capitalism isn't about to 'collapse'. It undergoes change often, but it can't collapse. There are shades of capitalism in EVERY economic system and Capitalism basic tenant, supply and demand, dictates EVERY economic system whether you want to acknowledge that or not.I never said that it is 'about' to collapse. What I said was, 'when' it collapses.It is naive to think that the current system we have will last forever, 'communism' is simply an option to take the place of said system. Here in lies the problem. The factories only produce what Microsoft creates, Without Microsofts innovation, research and development, marketing, etc. there is no NEED for the factories as there will be no products to produce. As I stated, those things would have already been invented, since 'communism' is a post-capitalist system.Then you have one more argument to argue the actual debate topic. Again, YOU don't get to determine the parameters of what is being debated. That was done in the challenge argument. You accepted the challenge and decided to debate something entirely different. By default your arguments are non-sensical to the ACTUAL debate that you accepted. As I stated, you set zero parameters. You didn't define the term that is so pivotal in this debate. That being Communism. So, when I defined the term, I set a parameter that was crucial for me to even begin the debate. So, this entire debate you have been counter-productive towards helping your argument, due to your lack of sources and evidence to back up your claims.In Conclusion:Pro has made claims that he has not sourced whatsoever. I have provided counter-arguments with sources to reflect the claims made, when he has set none to give his debate a basis.Pro has also continuously redefined the terms 'communism' and 'Communism' as being interchangeable, and equal terms, whereas I have shown sources that disprove this.Pro has not proved that 'communism' (the system I advocate for), is an antiquaited, disproven, political/economic system both morally and practically.Vote ConP.S., I apologize for any spelling errors made in my arguments, and for not being able to cover the entirety of Pro's argument, for I was running low on characters.Sources:1- http://en.wikipedia.org...2- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...3- http://www.necsi.edu...