On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

As I said previously, here are a few more issue I wish to address. Then I will begin rebuttals and defence of my own arguments.Need-Based FreedomOne of the greatest problems with Capitalism, is that it turns every day life into a competition, where some will win, and some will perish. By the nature of a competitive system, there must be losers. This is abominable. In such a system, no one is free. This is because Capitalism takes even based needs, and turns them into commodities to be bought and sold. Consider the following:You are walking down a hallway, when suddenly, you have the need to use a toilet. You rush towards the nearest washroom. As you do, you pass by a friend of yours, who calls out to chat. You reply hurriedly "Hold on, gotta pee!" You go to a washroom and relieve yourself.Now, in that moment, in that state of urgency, were you free? No, you were not. This is because you have a need. Not merely a want, but a need. And when individuals have needs, they MUST be focused on meeting those needs, and are not free to focus on other pursuits (such as chatting with a friend). Capitalism does much the same thing. There are things people need, food, clothing, shelter, ect., and rather than give them to people, Capitalism denies them to you, unless you work for them. Under such a system, you are therefore not free. Not truly, not fully. You may find ways to incorporate bits and pieces of what you like, if you know what you like (more on that later too), into your every day like or work. But you are not free to truly pursue it. Because you have needs that need meeting, so that is all you can focus on.How many of you, currently, or previously, worked a job that has nothing to do with your passions? How many of you, due to the need for money, took up work you did not desire, or worked for horrible people, simply to try and survive?And this is supposed to be freedom? Ridiculous! This system is immoral.Communist differs from Capitalism greatly when it comes to this. In a Communist society, human being's needs are considered natural rights. They must be fulfilled to be free. As private property is abolished, people are free to obtain whatever it is they are in need of, be it food, medical care, housing, ect. These things should be free to obtain, because without them, we are slaves to them, and more importantly, those who own them, and keep them from us. We are not free.Fulfillment of Human SatisfactionIt is often said of Capitalism that it improves human well-being, by virtue of competition. businesses want to make money, and they can only make more money by fulfilling the desires of people, and fulfilling them better than rival companies. This, however, is flawed, as in the very proposition, it is admitted that under Capitalism, companies are not, in fact, interested in fulfilling human beings; they are interested in profit, and, by seeking it, just so happen to fulfill people along the way. The problem is, by not being truly interested in serving the needs of people, Capitalism generates much harm. Consider that, for a firm to perform well in competition, one of the things that is required is increased productivity. In other words, more output per individual unit of labour. When productivity goes up, there are two different things one may do. If productivity rises, one option is to reduce work time, and increase leisure time, while keeping the same output as before. Alternatively, output may increase, while labour stays the same. Most people's lives are such that they necessarily seek and benefit from shorter working days, and longer holidays. Capitalism however is biased in favor of the latter; increasing toil. This is because the former threatens to cut into profits, which as you recall, is the goal of any capitalist business. When faced with the prospect of increased productivity, capitalist firms will always either increase output, or, if there is no room to do so in the market, will lay off their workforce, and invest the money they save elsewhere. This way productivity will continue to expand, along with profit, though at the sacrifice of human well-being along the way. Now, because business are biased in favor of increasing output, they are also biased in increasing consumption. In increasing need. Business are not truly interested in satisfying people's needs, they are interested in creating an endless chase of purchasing consumer goods, so that they can further their own profit. As an example, Alfred P. Sloan, once president of General Motors, once stated "It is the business of the automobile industry to make money, not cars." This is precisely true under a Capitalist system, and it is this truth that reveals why Capitalism is flawed; for if the automobile industry was geared towards serving the interests of the people, and not it's own ravenous hunger for profit, it would make far fewer cars.So when given an option between fulfilling the desires of human beings, or increasing profit, Capitalism will always be biased towards disregarding the well-being of people, in favor of profit. And this disregard occurs frequently. Illegitimacy of Private PropertyThis last thing I wish to touch upon is the illegitimacy of private ownership. One of the most popular criticisms of Capitalism is that, by simply being born into the right family, one can come into great wealth, for doing nothing, while the majority of the population labours for most of their life, only to earn a minute fraction of the wealth that one individual owns. What right does that person, or any person for that mater, have to that wealth and property though? Often times the reasoning is "well, it belonged to so-and-so, and they gave it to me". In other words, they invoke the legitimacy of their private property, by invoking the legitimacy of the one who held it before them.The problem with this line of reasoning, is it merely pushes the question back. We simply ask "well, what gave them the right to it?" And so on, and so forth, until we inevitably come to the original owners of private property, who first took it from the land. We must ask ourselves what right did they have, to take the land, and turn it private from it's naturally public state? What gave them the right to tell someone "you are not allowed to use these, because I 'own' it"? What justification can there be for such actions? There is none. There is no logical justification for the taking of a public earth, which not only humans, but a plethora of other creators live upon, and suddenly declaring ownership over it.And if the origins of capitalism are illegitimate, then any modern claim to private ownership is equally illegitimate. Now, I will begin rebuttals of my opponent' case. I have roughly about 1,200 character left when writing this, so I will be brief, and and anything I do not get to I will discuss in the following rounds, as well as further develop my rebuttals here.The Social Calculation ProblemMy opponent begins his argument by claiming there is no way to measure the value of goods and services. But he then goes on to claim Capitalism is able to do just this, through a monetary system. That is most perplexing.In any case, this portion of my opponent's argument is not really relevant, as Communism is not a system which requires value to be ascribed to good and services; in fact, it doesn't. The whole point of a Communist society is to destroy the notion of value and trade, in favor of individual pursuit. There is no need to "Calculate" the value of something, when it is not being traded for.Empirical Evidence For The Success of CapitalismMy opponent attempts to criticize Communism on the grounds of countries such as North Korea, the former USSR, and other such nations. Need I remind him that, as per our agreement in Round 1, these criticisms are invalidated on the grounds that these nations are not, nor were they ever, Communist.I will have to get to the rest of my opponents argument next round.