Human nature does not make libertarian socialism impossible to work in practice

I will use this round to review some of the occurrences during this debate. Relation of MAB and RA to the resolution My opponent has asserted that I have made a new argument coming into his last round. I would like to begin by also pointing out that this is only the second round of arguments as my opponent had laid out in the rules that R1 needn’t be for anything other than acceptance if I so chose. Next, he said that I had been misunderstanding his arguments. I understood the arguments that he was making which were, as he put them, as follows: “In my opening on MAB I showed that natural selection as a natural phenomenon generally selects for traits and behavior which "works best in regards to survival and general security". This is clearly a correct observation. We don't see evolution selecting for traits which are specifically unhelpful versus those which are (even when we see traits which are unhelpful, they often persist in spite of not through evolution). My next line of argumentation was to show that evolution has chosen traits like MAB and RA to be beneficial to human survival and society.” He says that he has shown that MAB and RA are beneficial to human survival and society, however, as I stated in the previous round, he has not proved that either is part of human nature, just that they are evolutionarily advantageous. He also claims that he linked scientific studies to show how these behaviors were evolutionary significant, however he only uses these studies to prove two claims. The first of these is: “The evolutionary significance of RA is in a the idea that evolution can tend to select for those who choose RA as in close-knit communities.” There are many traits that evolution can tend to select that are not part of human nature, therefore, this use of the scientific study has not proved that RA is part of human nature. The second point he proves with his scientific data is “that altruists tend to cooperate more frequently with others who will likely reciprocate.” This does not prove that RA is part of human nature either. So although he has used two scientific studies for sources (and you can give him the source vote for that), they do not serve a large purpose in advancing his argument. Another contention by my opponent is that I have dropped an argument. This is not the case. My opponent argued that scarcity implied allocation rather than competition and that unless I could prove that competition was part of human nature, then allocation would be better. “All that the existence of scarce resources proves is that there is a need to rationally allocate things like food and water. It doesn't mean that it must be allocated in a competitive way which is just one manner out of many and my opponent has not shown why competition is more conductive to human nature.” Because I feel I had sufficiently proved competition is more conductive to human nature all ready (we’ll get to that in a moment), I assumed that the blanks could simply be filled in on their own and I did not need to repeat myself. Next, my opponent says I defined competition as a competition as an actual rivalry between two organisms. This is an utter fallacy, as I provided several possible definitions of the word competition. All of these definitions, when exhibited in humans, conflict with libertarian socialism. The first definition is 1.the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc. This definition does not in any way say that there must be a physical competition between two organisms. It simply says that it is any form of rivalry or competition. By my opponents own admission, all natural selection relies on is surviving long enough to reproduce. As I have shown through my hominid example from the previous round, competition plays a large role in natural selection because part of surviving involves taking advantage of natural advantages, thus competing for limited resources using these advantageous traits. Finally, my opponent argues that I had not provided evidence that competition exits in a majority of societies. This is true that I did not provide evidence in the traditional sense, I provided my evidence in the form of a question which he failed to answer. We all know that conflicts have existed throughout human history [1] [2]. I asked him to name a conflict not caused by competition. Because he did not answer this question, I assume that he could not think of an answer. If conflict has been a part of human behavior, and conflict is caused by competition, then competition must be a general part of human behavior. Instead of answering the question, he provides examples of societies that are libertarian socialism. I never denied that this type of society could exist, I am just arguing that it is contrary to a large part of human nature. If I wanted to stretch his contention of a dropped argument for my “drop” of scarcity implies allocation, I could say that he has dropped my question. I would like to also thank my opponent for this debate. He has reminded you voters of several reasons why you should vote for him, and I will remind you of several reasons why you should vote Con: I have shown that he never actually proved that MAB and RA are a large part of human nature I have proved that competition is a fundamental part of evolution and human nature. Thanks for evaluating this debate and vote Con!Sources:[1]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]-http://en.wikipedia.org...