Communism will beat Capitalism

My opponent's evidence has been mischaracterized. Of course 1st world industrialized countries have the most starved peoples when you combine all of them together. In America alone, there are 300 million citizens. More so in the entire continent of Europe. The number, however, isn't disproportionate. According to his hunger statistics that he posted, the most DISPROPORTIONATE number of hungry people come from Asia and Africa. Lo and behold, those countries in Asia and Africa or either totalitarian or communist in nature. His own sources say the following: "Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest prevalence (percentage of population) of hunger. One person in four there is undernourished." "Asia is the continent with the most hungry people - two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years but in western Asia it has increased slightly." "The vast majority of the world's hungry people live in developing countries, where 12.9 percent of the population is undernourished." Keep in mind that developing countries are not Capitalist countries, but more so Socialist countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and South America. Also, keep in mind that the MAJORITY of DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS OF STARVING PEOPLE come from countries that aren't Capitalistic. Essentially, my opponent lumped together every capitalist country and added together all of the poor people and presented it as proof that Capitalism is bad. He is using a fallacious argument: post hoc fallacy. Basically, the fallacy is; A occured, then B occured. Therefore, A caused B. His argument is this: Capitalism occurred, then poverty happened. Therefore, Capitalism caused poverty. This argument is built up on assumptions. It's assuming that Capitalism is the cause of 1st world countries' poverty. This is extremely misleading, since he isn't breaking down the basic components of his argument with well thought out evidence to support it. It's an assumption that capitalism CAUSES poverty. In fact, every economic system has poor people, and the most disproportionate amount of poor people COMES FROM communist countries. Another possibility would be to assume that heavily regulated government causes poverty. Mass flooding of immigration causes poverty. Artificially raising the minimum wage causes poverty. Natural disasters causes poverty. Thus, it's fallacious to merely assume capitalism is the cause of poverty, when clearly any economic model has way too many moving parts (except for Communism, since the governing state body makes centralized decisions. Thus, its extremely easy to tell where the flaws are coming from). And quite frankly, its a little dishonest. But let's see what communism has done to bring about extreme food shortages and starvation: 1. Communist Mao attempted to use what was called, "collective farming," In short, collective farming means the farmer would get paid the same amount regardless of his crop or amount of it. Thus the farmers became complacent, didn't see any reason to work hard and many let their fields go fallow. The local officials then lied to Beijing to cover their butts and said that quota's had been met. The result was mass starvation where up to 60 million people died. 2. In recent communist Russian history, food shortages were literally a norm. http://chnm.gmu.edu... Central Intelligence Agency, "Soviet Food Shortages," Making the History of 1989, Item #182, http://chnm.gmu.edu... (accessed August 11 2016, 6:41 am). Compare that to any capitalist country. Yes, we have poor people. Sadly, yes, we have starving people. Do we have bread lines anymore? No. Do we have massive food shortages anymore? No. Yes, the U.S. has the everyday, run of the mill fat guy, but honestly, having the freedom to choose your lifestyle is by far better than abject starvation and food shortages. In conclusion, my opponent has, once again, brought forth no evidence to support his contention that Capitalism will fall, or that Communism will prevail. Everything he has shown thus far is antithetical to his argument. 1. Capitalism, while having its obvious flaws, is doing fine. 2. Capitalism, while having it's obvious flaws, is doing better than all of the communist countries in the past and present combined. (His own evidence supports both 1 and 2) 3. There is still no evidence brought forth by my opponent that shows and demonstrates how Communism will take over when the overwhelming majority of capitalist citizens are flourishing on a scale never before seen in human history. Round 4, warp factor 1. Engage. Red alert. Counter argument approaching. All hands, brace for impact!