anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

I would like to take this time to refute the points brought up by my opponent. But before I even go on to refutation, I will point out all the flaws in the very system of the two systems that make up anarcho-communism: anarchy, and communism. First on the list, anarchy. Clearly this system will likely never occur because of the detriments it has to society. In the system of anarchy, there is no law. You can do whatever you please. This would certainly lead to mass-chaos and destruction. You want to kill someone? Go ahead. There is no order, society would fall apart at the seams. When fighting zombies, this system will spell defeat for humans. There would be no coordinated strike, no "creeping barrage", no tactics employed, instead it would just be untrained soldiers controlling their own lives, doing whatever they feel like doing. Secondly: Communism. We can even look at history as an example. When China joined the World Trade Organization, essentially every major communist nation had vanished. The system completely failed. Why? Because the assumption that everyone can be equal and they should be equal. But we aren't. There are those who are smarter, there are those who are more athletic, there is no chance that we can all be equal. The system failed because we were forcing people to become equal. This is against human nature, we all have ambition, we all have the drive to succeed. At several points during my opponents speech, he seems to refer to just straight communism and not anarcho-communism. I would like for him to clear up those indiscretions. When we combine these two fatally flawed systems to gether, we in the words of my opponent achieve equality and a utopia. "Everyone has what they want". This clearly is a flawed sentence. How is it possible for everyone to have what they want? I want my neighbours house, and in the system of anarcho-communism according to my opponent, I would get it. Now on to rebuttals. Firstly, he talks of how the hierarchial system kills initiative at the bottom of the system. However, a hierarchial system is what maintains order in the world. There will always be those who lead, and those who follow. If those who were followers chose not to follow and take "initiative" and become leaders, we would have a society with too many leaders and no followers. If we have too many leaders and no followers, we would have complete chaos. Secondly, he talks of solidarity. He claims that this bond will hold every one together and supplies, troops, whatever is needed will be shipped around the world. However, he also says that every one rules their own life. What happens when someone disagrees with the rest of the group? What happens when someone feels he needs to "leave the pack" and take control of his own life by living away from every one else? I would invite the Proposition to inform me of what happens when dissent runs among everyone. Will that solidarity remain? Also, solidarity is also found in democracy. You have a bond to your fellow country men, and to your country. This doesn't exist in anarcho-communism as the state has been abolished. He attempts to refute my point on a structured military by saying that people would be trained from a young age to fight, yet then goes on ahead and says that they learn their fighting skills from being on the volunteer police force. If these contradictions weren't enough, he fails to realize that police officers need training. It doesn't matter if they are on the volunteer police force for years if they don't receive proper training. But of course, they can't receive training as the trainers would therefore theoretically be "better" than the trainees. Wouldn't this establish a hierarchial system? Let's assume for the purposes of the debate that they would receive combat training from a young age. Wouldn't this also establish a hierarchy? It seems from the third point that my opponent brings up, a serious form of anarchy would take place. "This isn't a mass of mindless workers, this a society of people who rule their own lives". As I have pointed out above, any system of anarchy will crumble. It seems that the Proposition has made no real refutation to my arguments, as they still stand strong. On the other hand, I have refuted all of my opponents points and pointed out various contradictions in his arguments. My contentions were: MILITARY - the government has a standing army of PROFESSIONAL soldiers who could easily combat zombies ORDER - the government would prevent chaos from breaking out, something that could easily derail a nations fighting efforts FOCUSED PRODUCTION - a nation focused on one thing: war; could easily manufacture the supplies needed in comparison to anarcho-communism where they manufacture what they feel like manufacturing For these reasons, Vote Con.