anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

I would like to take this time to refute the arguments brought up by my opponent. Firstly, my opponent speaks of the Spanish Civil War and the International Brigades. The International Brigade was formed by volunteers from around the world. Furthermore, anarchists in France were actually very opposed to the International Brigades through fear of losing territory to Spain. Secondly, there were very few communists present in the International Brigades, the only communists were exiles from Russia. The majority of the troops were American, British, French, and Australian. All were pro-democracy! My opponent should know that the purpose of the International Brigades was to stop the spread of fascism into Spain and spread DEMOCRACY. However, they failed and were defeated. Furthermore, if a completely volunteer army, with little air and artillery support could fight that well, what could a fully trained army, with access to complete air, artillery, and land support could do? Democracy would deal with this far easier as during a zombie apocalypse as they have access to that kind of military. Furthermore, my opponent speaks of nationalism. However, there is an international community and there would be no doubt that other countries would intervene. During WW2, though Britain and France were opposed to the communist regime of the Soviet Union, they put aside their differences and UNITED against Germany. If they intervened to stop the spread of communism, or fascism, don't you think that they would intervene if the dead rose to live? ? My opponent then goes on to say that authority is sometimes justified, yet one of the key ideas in his arguments is anarchy. Authority and anarchism are like oil and water. I would like my opponent to clear up that little contradiction in R5. My opponent then tells us that for military, humans are trained to aim for the centre mass. This is easily remedied by instructing the soldiers to aim for the head. My opponent then brings up the example of WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers. When I searched up WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers on Google, I found out that WWZ stands for World War Zombie and the Battle of Yonkers was a battle that occurred in August 2013. The examples of WWZ and the Battle of Yonkers carry no weight behind them and cannot be considered a "reliable source" as it has never happened and never will. The example of a fantasy universe cannot be applied to the real world. I would like to point out that my opponent has still not made any serious refutations to my arguments and they all still stand strong. My arguments were: MILITARY – any form of state (such as democracy) would have a standing and professional army which could deal with a zombie apocalypse far better compared to anarcho-communism ORDER – any form of state (such as democracy) would be able to maintain order in cities which would be key to deal with mass panic by the public. Anarcho-communism does not have that ability. FOCUSED DEVELOPMENT – any form of state (such as democracy) would be able to focus an entire nations production to war efforts, unlike anarcho-communism. This focused development would be able to produce supplies and armaments far better than anarcho-communism. For these reasons, Vote Con. Sources: Usbourne Introduction to the Second World War