Communism is better than Capitalism

Thanks for the reply. . 'I still stand by my decision that people are born evil. ' I won't take that away from you , I have responded with a study and you did not try to counter-argue , you have not fulfilled the BoP let's just leave it at that and call that your opinion. 'Take when a person sees something they want they may not take it, but they will want to own it. ' My opponent is telling us why he thinks all people are evil , I don't see how this is relevant to Communism and Capitalism but I would like to remind all the audience that Pro has the BoP on him . He makes a statement that all people are evil yet he doesn't back it up with any evidence so I think it is fair enough to dismiss it . I personally don't think the urge to own things is a bad thing especially as it can lead to hard work and determination to get it. 'If a baby was never taught good it will almost certainly do bad' It is more likely for children raised by bad parents to become evil people themselves yes I agree just like Stefan Molyneux does and he is a famous Anarcho-Capitalist who stands against hitting children . ()'Charity is just the rich that have gotten ahead in life pitying the ones that cannot get ahead. ' -Opinion not an argument. 'Hundreds of years before Freud, philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a similarly pessimistic view of humanity and famously wrote that the life of man in his natural state is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. " Essentially, he believed all men were equally capable of killing, and when two people want the same thing the inevitable outcome is war. In his mind, government and civil society were the only ways to curb the brutishness, yet he admitted even governments and the elite were full of corruption. ' I'm not debating Thomas Hobbes , nor do I care what he thought . You can fulfill the BoP by backing up your opinion with arguments this on the other hand is not helping . -Back to charity. 'He also thought that a powerful person's donation to charity was "a display of his power and an expression of his pity. " Does it really matter why somebody donates ? Would you rather have no-one help the poor? As I have shown in R2 government redistribution is less effective then private charity . My opponent has not shown that the majority of those who donate to charity are rich . 'The study, from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, looks at charitable giving in 2012. Compared with 2006 — the year before the start of the Great Recession — Americans who earn less than $100,000 per year contributed 4.5 percent more of their incomes to charity that year. Meanwhile, those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 reduced their giving by 3.3 percent, and Americans earning more than $200,000 cut back their donations by 4.5 percent:' - (. http://www.salon.com...)The source shows that there is a raising trend amongst the poor and middle classes to donate to charity . Pro to make a good case has to prove that 1)The rich donating is somehow a bad thing 2)The reason for the donation is more important then the fact that there is a donation 3)The majority of those who donate to charity are rich . My opponent continues 'In Communism people can better themselves in a way. Like if you are an uneducated worker Communism can give you an education and a job. Even if it is not something you would want to do its a lot better than working in a factory or living on the streets. ' Pro did not back his claim up with evidence , he has not proved that Capitalism can't offer jobs and education . In fact I highly doubt he will give me a source showing that Communist countries had higher quality of Post 18 education then the European semi-Capitalist nations , I also highly doubt that he can prove there were better job opportunities in the Soviet Union then people had in the West. 'When there are classes in society the people at the bottom will always want to be the people at the top. This breeds resentment and will eventually lead to some sort of conflict. ' Pro has not showed any examples , additionally he did not back his opinion up with a source therefore it stays an opinion and gets dismissed . Pro proceeds to tell me the six elements in Marx's view of class conflict and he explains to me what Hobbes thought . Which is pretty irrelevant to the debate . His last paragraph states : 'The Communist Manifesto is one of the most concise summaries of a government. It is pretty sound theory but in application it fails. Communism is not as futile as trying to teach an elephant to fly it will become a major form of government. ' Pro admits that partially Communism fails and through this negates his own resolution . The fact that in Pro's opinion Communism will become a major form of government does not affect whether Communism is better than Capitalism. Conclusion Overall I feel that Pro failed on many layers , he himself admits through the debate to not believing that the enforcement of Communism works , secondly he failed to back up his opinions with evidence or sources which leads to me simply skipping through large chunks of what my opponent wrote . He used a number of quotes but that is all they are and he did not effectively use them to support his own case. Thirdly he failed to address most of my criticisms while I responded to everything I should have, and therefore he has not fulfilled the BoP .