Communism will beat Capitalism

"I am suggesting that the people willingly, voluntarily join this cause. If you don't want to participate, that's just fine. You can keep right on eating the crap that stocks the shelves at capitalist grocery stores. No one's going to stop you." What my opponent fails to realize is, Government, regardless of the social system and especially in a Communist regime, has a monopoly on force. The only way for the Government to make something happen is through the use of compliance and force. Let the record show that my opponent has failed time and time again to show exactly how this will be done, especially without the use of force. "What I am suggesting is absolutely not what Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin did. They really were all about stealing land and using force." According to the Webster dictionary---Communism: a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property In a Communist government, there IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Government owns it all. One of two things has happened to my opponent: 1. He has failed to properly define what his version of a communist government is ( a fatal mistake on his side of the debate) 2. My opponent doesn't know what Communism actually is. "In the suburban co-op, we would not try to control any land that any corporation already controls. We won't be taking any new land; we will be repurposing land we already own. Using the yards and lawns we already control. Monsanto and Con-Agra can keep "their" land." My contention stands. This is still stealing. Just because it isn't a family's land, or that it isn't some "mom and pops" property doesn't justify taking the land against the owner's will. My opponent assumes that just because it's owned by big business, that it's OK to take their land based on the assumption that that big business is somehow immoral. This brings me to two points on this: 1. At what point did the Monsanto family become inherently immoral where we can justify taking their property? 2. Businesses, whether big or small, are the legal and rightful ownership of the businessperson that STARTED that business. They got capital to start it, and they incurred all of the risk in order to get it running. Those big businesses would not have been successful WITHOUT the use of Capitalism, so essentially, my opponent wants to seize the success of businesses and piggyback off of the Capitalist system that made it successful in the first place. "Really? Not every person knows how to farm? Their grass farms ("lawns") seem to be doing just fine to me." My opponent fails to realize is that not everyone owns grass, and grass itself is very low maintennence. Growing food to consume safely takes a lot of harvesting, hard work, and a scientific understanding of how to use the proper nutrients of your land for maximum yield. So yes, not everyone knows how to do this. "But most people do live in suburbs. And as for those that don't, they can still contribute. Balconies. Rooftops. Potential farmland is hidden anywhere with sunlight exposure and occasional rain." Factually incorrect. Only 25 percent of Americans live in Suburb areas, according to American Consensus Bureau. Also, and like I pointed out earlier, allocating the proper soil and resorces to plant in a place where it wasn't meant to produce food for a population is extremely costly, dangerous, and unsanitary. The buildings in cities weren't designed to produce food, and it would take the advice of engineers to make sure buildings can sustain such a crazy idea. But if Engineers don't want to participate in your system, what would the Government do? Oh. Use force. "Well, lawn maintenance is pretty laborious too, and it doesn't even yield food. "Extremely laborious"? Quite a few of people have repurposed their lawns to serve as food sources. Take a look at this website created by a person who did just that:" The evidence that my opponent put forth by showing the testimonies of people that have started their farm doesn't disprove the fact that gardening is a laborious task. If I put forth testimonies of successful engineers and how happy they are to have graduated, does that prove that math and physics is easy? No it does not. Also, doing something for a hobby is drastically different then being forced to do something that needs to feed other people. And since anecdotal material passes for evidence, then I would happily oblige to show you why gardening is very grueling labor: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... First sentences of the article: "It"s relentlessly boring, repetitive, back-breaking work that no one in their right mind could really enjoy. So what keeps us toiling in the borders, asks Anne Wareham" And this is but one dissenting opinion. The fact is, not everyone will be WILLING to garden their yards in the first place. The only way you can get this to work is if you force people to labor, and we all know that is slavery; forcing people to work against their will. My opponent asserted earlier that if people didn't want to garden, they can still use the centralized grocery stores. How? IF communism took over, then employees wouldn't be paid for the labor or worth. How can you have a store stocked and operating if the system has been overthrown and we don't have any flow of currency that pays its workers what their worth? It wouldn't work. Finally, allow me to critique my opponents position. If I were to argue this position, it's not localized farming that will make this system work. Technology will. Humans are prone to error and most are extremely unskilled and it takes an extremely long time to even learn a task, let alone complete it. If we were to feed millions of people, we should first work towards massive over abundance where labor by humans is replaced with automation---This is an economic angle that I think my opponent should have taken. If we have an overabundance of resources, then the value of those resources drop completely. The best way we can minimize labor and up production in terms of food would be aquaponics. https://en.wikipedia.org... You can have these centralized by city, have them separated by stories of different produce, and it has very low maintenance and less water needed to sustain a big yield after a successful harvest. In our society, we don't need more unskilled labor doing tasks that will hurt people. We need more technology, automation, and science. This was my opponent's biggest flaw: His argument lacked a technical approach. Capitalism and Communism are both technical creations. They rely on resources, infrastructure, distribution, and labor. A well thought out technical approach instead of an ideological one that mirrors the murderous regimes in the past isn't going to win him the debate (I think). In concluding this debate, my opponent gave weak contentions in how Communism will prevail, and how Capitalism will fall. The truth is, The only way governments get anything done was by force, and if most people won't be willing to submit to labor they don't want to do, with property that is no longer theirs, then threat of force is the only way to make it happen. Localized farming on a national level is an appalling idea. Like I asserted before, it will cause massive shortages, and the energy and resources needed to execute such a plan is astronomically insane. In essence, he's heavily lacking in the "nuts and bolts" of his plans and makes grand assumptions to get to B from A. Furthermore, my opponent never gave sound evidence that Capitalism will fall in the first place. He gave vague economic charts, one of them which countered his main point to begin with (see round 3 for further details). Thank you for your time.