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

Relation of MAB and RA to the resolution.My opponent brings up a different sort of argument in his last round. He argues now (coming into my last response of the debate) that I have not provided sufficient evidence that MAB and RA are large enough parts of human nature. Aside from his strawmann of my own arguments (claiming I only showed the traits to be desirable), my opponent appears to be missing the point of my argument. Therefore I will reiterate my points for clarity. 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. In fact, I linked to two separate scientific studies showing the evolutionary significance of these behaviors. For the sake of clarity I'll post them again.http://education.ucsb.edu...(The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Robert L. Trivers. Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 46.)http://www.wwnorton.com...(From an online college anthropology textbook)Contention. Scarcity and Competition.Before I begin my final refutation, I implore readers to note that my opponent has completely dropped my point about scarcity only in itself implying need for rational allocation and that competition and cooperation are themselves just different forms of this. From this I showed that the existence of scarcity could not be shown to prove either systems as necessarily existent, just that some form of economic system would be necessary in a civilized society. My opponent has not so much as mentioned it and therefore he has dropped it. Note that the rules show drops to be concessions and even if this were not the case, responding to it now would be abusive, seeing as I would not be able to respond.Contention. Competition and Evolution.The next point argued in favor of my opponent's case is the notion that competition by itself is what drives evolution and thus, since humans are a by-product of evolution, competition is ingrained into our nature. While it cannot be denied that competition has been a large part of natural selection, this doesn't prove all that my opponent believes it does. For instance, his assertion that "natural selection requires competition" is utterly without substantiation. There are numerous other factors to be accounted for in what drives evolution. My opponent defined competition as actual rivalry between two organisms. Natural selection does not only rely on this though. All it relies on is survival for long enough to reproduce. As I already showed, MAB and RA are beneficial to survival and are thus selected for in evolution. We can see from this alone that competition is not the sole driving force in natural selection in that a specific lack of rivalry has been shown to advance it in many cases. Contention. Competition and History.My opponent's next point is that competition has been existent in many societies throughout history, therefore competition is a large aspect of our nature. Con has first not provided any actual evidence for the contention of competition existing in a majority of societies. While we know that competition does exist, we do not have sufficient evidence provided by Con to show that it exists in the majority of societies. Anthropological evidence in fact shows that hunter-gatherer societies (our main evolutionary fore-societies) existed in largely the same basic form of that of libertarian socialism with the stronger members hunting for meat food and the weaker ones gathering and foraging for plant food. The societies were generally non-hierarchical and food was gathered for use by itself.[1][2][3] Many of these societies are still in existence, among them the Bushmen and the Inuits. The fact that they have existed for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years actually by itself proves the viability of a libertarian socialist society. MAB and RA have clearly been existent in both our own evolutionary history and in many currently existing societies. Not only that, but we can even see the effects of such behaviors in many aspects of contemporary society, as in the dominant religions[4][5].===I'd like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate this topic and wish him the best of luck in the voting period. However, I think that the fact that I showed a strong evolutionary presence of MAB and RA, the fact that my opponent has dropped my refutation showing that scarcity simply implies allocation, not competition, and the fact that I have shown strong anthropological evidence showing the existence of libertarian socialist type societies both in past and current make a strong case for a Pro vote.======Sources===[1] http://libcom.org...(Egalitarian Societies. James Woodburn. Man, New Series Volume 17.)[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] http://www.futurepundit.com...[4] http://www.allaboutgod.com...[5] http://www.islamreligion.com...