Communism(Con) v Capitalism(Pro)

Rebuttals to Pro's rebuttals to my Rebuttals to his rebuttals (Carrying on the habit)Communism itself needs no slaughtering and genocide. Simply because some tyrants decides to commit mass murder, Communism cannot be held accountable to that. Applying Pro's logic, Francois & Jean-Claude Duvalier (I had a plethora of other choices for capitalist dictators, for the record), Haitian dictators who had pro-capitalist views, and support from The United States, murdered millions of their own citizens. Thus, capitalism is an evil system that leads to cruelty. In addition to his rebuttal, Pro argues that 5$ to Chinese citizens is an acceptable sum. But that is not true; the most basic foods cost more than they make for a day. For instance, buying Bananas in Hangzhou would cost you $4.99. This is the daily life of the 902 million Chinese, that supposedly enjoyed the switch to Capitalism.[1] Recognition of IndividualsPro claims that the bottom 3.5 billion aren't lacking essentials. That's mistaken. We all know the most desperate regions in the world right now are suffering from all sorts of problems. Those problems could easily be solved, it is estimated that 30 billion would be needed to work towards ending world poverty. Our society will allow Billionaires to stack up meaningless billions one upon another, and let 850 million people starve [2]. Sure they have worked for it, and, congratulations for it, but what about the hundreds of millions of men, women and children who weren't born in the Western World or any developed nation for that matter, and are thus excluded from any opportunities to lift themselves out of poverty? Isn't it our duty to lift them out of poverty? Why Communism will fail:Again, I can, and have, named a country that was better under Communism. Pro deliberately ignores that. The Soviet Union was undoubtedly better under Communism. And again, the switch to capitalism in Russia, is what drove a major superpower to a 'limping stagnate economy'. Secondly, Pro refutes a poll that I provided, because he believes Putin might of had an influence on the answers provided, this is a crystal clear example of Pro's regular refusals to address legitimate sources, and I believe that the voters should take that into consideration when voting. Moreover, I do agree with Pro that the North Korean Government's foreign policy is meager, but my point was that the Sanctions have harmed the growth of the country, and I think we can both agree on that point. Furthermore, I believe that the Soviet Union would've been able to put a man to the moon, but simply, the Space Race had a enormous cost, and unlike the United States, the USSR saw no interest in perpetuating a costly and useless race. There was no American superiority over the Soviet Union, the more pretentious country won the Space Race, that is it. The Soviet Union did not necessarily collapse because of economic collapse. The USSR's growth was indeed slowing, added the fact that the Soviet Union had to assure survival for all its allies while increasing its defence budget as the United States were increasing theirs, (Ronald Reagan's administration had abandoned the détente, and were in favour of a renewed arms race).-- Final concluding statements: I am grateful towards Pro for offering this debate, it was a passionate one. One last rebuttal, Pro argues that Communism doesn't value individuals, that is not true. Communism undoubtedly cares more about individuals than Capitalism. Wage slavery does not exist in Communism, and the state supplies everyone, regard less of race, wealth or background, equal opportunities. And although I disagree with Pro blaming his unemployment on Barack Obama, that claim is just irrelevant in this debate. Communism provided for all people, that concept is unfamiliar to us Westerners, for us, those who do not affect the economy will not and do not deserve to live decent lives. We are completely okay with having gigantic mufti-corporations who refuse to pay their workers a decent, living wage, have a massive impact on politics through Lobbying. For example, the Koch Brothers will spend nearly $1 BILLION [3]in the 2016 U.S Presidential elections. This is a clear example of bribery of American politicians. How do people expect their elected officials to pass regulations that improves the lives of the middle-class Americans? In a capitalist world, those who's role aren't significant in the economy, will starve. They will never have the same opportunities as those who exploit workers. Capitalism resumes itself as million of lives idled with unemployment and homelessness, both of which are inexistant in Communism.Finally, I believe you should vote Con because Pro has failed to explain how Capitalism is better than Communism and why we should vote for him. He regularly refused to adress sources that were legitimate for a wide range of irrelevant reasons. I would like to thank Pro, and the voters for participating in this debate. I truly hope the voters have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. And to Pro I say that I am most definately looking forward to another debate!-- Sources :[1] http://static4.businessinsider.com... (Chart from Business Insider)[2] http://borgenproject.org...[3] http://www.cbsnews.com... (CBS News)