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

'"communism: A theoretical economic system ...""'communism' is a stateless, classless, moneyless..."You just completed contradicted your own ideals and we've barely gotten started. There is no economic system without a currency. As you advocate some sort of twisted 'moneyless' system to use your word, then your version of Communism by default is NOT an economic system. There can be no economy without some sort of currency. Even in a simplistic barter system there is currency, or value, in goods traded for other goods. You eliminate all of that, hence no economy at all.'So, what you're saying is, there is no such thing as an economic system that doesn't use money?I disagree, there are many systems of socio-economics, such as the Resource Based Economy[1], that don't have a monetary system. The idea of a gift economy[2], with reliance on a system of mutal aid[3], is a major tenent in 'communism'. What you fail to realize is that there has never been a 100% barter economy in the entire history of mankind, it has always been blended with a gift economy of some sort.'"I have two cows, my neighbors help me take care of them, and we all share the milk produced."Another contradiction. If there is no currency with which to buy the cows then nobody owns them. By default the cows are either communally 'owned' or they are 'free'. Either way, you don't own them. See, even little nuances like this make it clear you haven't thought this out very well.'The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that for one to own something, that it must first be bought. Let me use this as an example, you own your body correct? However, did you have to buy your body to own it in the first place? No, you have a natural right to it. In 'communism', all things that are producers, such as factories, farms, and yes, even cows, are all owned by those who put work into those producers. They have a natural right to collectively distribute to themselves what is produced from these producers.'"Therefore, since I advocate for 'communism' and I am a 'communist', you cannot generalize me and name me as being a 'Communist', and that I support 'Communism'."Communism is an ideology. You support said ideology. That makes you a Communist. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the implementation necessary for it to work. It also doesn't matter that it is impossible to implement your version of it. If you believe in the ideology then you are, indeed, a Communist. I am a capitalist. I don't necessary agree with every misuse and abuse of the system, but I don't get to invent a purer version of it in my own mind and claim THAT is what I am. Fact is we live in the real world, not your fantasy island. In the real world, with real people, Communism does not work. Your tweaks to the theory only serve to make it an even more deeply flawed system impossible to implement.' 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 since you assumed I was a 'Communist', and not a 'communist'. Thus, if you are arguing for 'Communism', then you are arguing about the wrong topic, and your argument becomes null and void. That was the point i was trying to make if you didn't understand.You also state that the system is impossible to implement, your evidence for such? No system is necessarily impossible to implement. All you are saying in this argument is that 'Communism' (Note that you are using the term 'Communism' which is not the system I am advocating for in this debate.) doesn't work, and you provide absolutely zero evidence.' "The logical flaw with this argument, is that human nature itself is not a fixed thing. "Of course not. Which is why your system is doomed to failure.'You say that it is doomed to failure, then you don't provide any other basis to elaborate this cryptic sentence. Here, yet again, you provide no evidence.'"Human nature is something that bends and adapts to the economic system that it habitates in."Untrue. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt to most situations, but it is certainly not human nature to do so. When you push people beyond their WILLINGNESS to adapt, they push back, hard. THAT is human nature. That is why the Soviet Union fell. It is why the United States became the most successful country the world has ever known. They pushed back once Britain pushed them beyond their willingness to accept the economic system imposed.' So, what you are saying is, 'communism' would push people 'beyond their willingness to adapt'?I don't see how that would be possible, since there is no government or leader pushing them to adapt, they would do so of their own free will. My point here in the quote above, was that 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. 'communism' itself is meant to be a system of many that could replace capitalism after it eventually fails, since it will like all systems, to provide a means of survival and welfare for the citizens of the Earth.'We also still have this leaderless issue...you are working on the entirely fanciful assumption that 7 billion+ people will just magically follow your ideology, without leadership. As if communism is the 'natural' way to run society. If there are no leaders, that means there is no structure, no law enforcement...indeed no laws. There could be no innovation, medical practice would be set back a century. No research and development. No new products. Heck, no continuance of current products that aren't deemed necessities. After all, you can't have an XBox if you have no money to buy one. Or is Microsoft somehow going to exist solely to give out free XBoxes to everyone?'I am by no means assuming that people will instantaneously follow my ideology, all I am saying is, 'communism' is a system that would be an alternative to capitalism after it collapses. Since we are starting to build a more global society with things like the internet and the cell phone, it isn't unlikely that we will eventually develop a more similar thinking global society.Also, Microsoft wouldn't exist in a 'communist' society, it's factories would be owned by the workers. Who would then pool those Xboxes produced to a communal warehouse, then distribute what is needed to themselves. However, it would be impractical to produce Xboxes of all things that could be produced using a factory, but, if Xboxes are wanted, and needs are satisfied, then they would be produced. This half answers the next quote.'There would be no reason to continue producing consumer products and no motivation to advance science' I disagree, most people innovate for science not out material want, but simply because they are interested by their field, and wish to make a mark in it. If one would want to innovate in a 'communist' society, they wouldn't need an understanding of economics to distribute their invention. Things like medicinal cures would still be needed out of a need for survival, and therefore would be produced.'No contradiction whatsoever. Your belief and what Communism actually is are two different things. Your version doesn't exist, has never existed, and couldn't possibly exist going forward hence your version means nothing to this debate. This debate is about PRACTICE, not fantasy, as I clearly stated in the 1st paragraph of the challenging argument.' I will make sure to include a source or two for 'communism' (anarcho-communism)[4], at the bottom of the page. If this debate is about practice, then why do you not show evidence for your claims? I will resume the rest of this argument in the next round.Sources:1- http://www.thevenusproject.com...2- http://en.wikipedia.org...3- http://en.wikipedia.org...(organization_theory)4- http://en.wikipedia.org...