On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

Regarding the ToAC my opponent suggests this simply will not happen. I cited in examples in R1 of where this did happen in Europe, and moreover, it's happened in places like Russia [1] and even the U.S. [2]. The commons leads to overuse and destruction; the anticommons leads to underuse and waste. It also restricts ownership mandating a class and thus rights distinction (this argument was ignored). Since both systems have potential problems, capitalism hasn't proven to be better. Additionally I mentioned that people will cause unnecessary destruction to the environment simply to profit which negatively affects everyone - something they would have no reason to do in my system. Pro says he responded to egalitarianism in Round 2, Point 1A (which I have allegedly not responded to). I challenge my opponent to point out where he even ONCE mentioned the word egalitarianism in that point. Hint: he hasn't. That point talks about property rights - not the ethical doctrine I've used to justify my case. Pro says it's too late in the debate to bring up new arguments, yet hypocritically makes arguments against egalitarianism for the first time in the very last round. Contrary to Con's accusations, I have NOT committed the negative proof fallacy to justify this doctrine. I've pointed out the theory that egalitarianism reflects the natural state of society, as well as provided a link proving the negative effects *because* of income disparity. Pro has not responded to either of those or any of my arguments for egalitarianism. I haven't argued X is true because there is no proof that X is false. Instead I've argued X is true because of A, B and C. Pro suggests egalitarianism is an appeal to consequence. On the contrary I've been using facts and historical evidence to justify my arguments, so at this point it seems Pro is just name-dropping fallacies to discredit my arguments without justifying his accusations. Pro continues, "I have consistently argued for negative rights on a priori grounds... Thus, the entire issue is a moot point." This is false. Negative rights are typically rights to not be subjected to certain conditions; this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I've said about the ToAC. Pro continues to claim I've used fallacious reasoning (post hoc: A happens before B; therefore A is the cause of B) in response to the relationship between income disparity and social ills. No - I've explained exactly how income disparity *mandates* social ills. Pro suggests cronyist practices are to blame, though never explains how and simply provides a link to a book that apparently explains this. Not only was it an improper citation, but I'm not debating the Cato Institute. I'm debating J.Kenyon, and he has not justified this assertion whatsoever so we have no reason to accept it (not that it's true anyway). Apparently he expects me and the audience to read the entire book he linked us to and accept that as his argument. Bad conduct. Pro writes, "Con has conceded that capitalism increases economic prosperity, which leads to... respect for human rights, and overall well-being." Yet another bare assertion -- I could just as easily say *my* system offers more respect for human rights and well-being. Moreover I've explained that capitalism leads to economic prosperity insofar as it creates monetary wealth whereas my system does not. Clearly a system with no currency does not generate "economic wealth," though this is completely irrelevant as I've repeatedly explained my system values NON-monetary incentives. I pointed out Pro would therefore have to find another way to criticize my system; apparently he could not. Pro continues, "Con holds that all land rightfully belongs to the human race as a whole. Con still has not justified the latter claim." At this point I'm starting to consider these accusations bad conduct. It's one thing to argue against my claims; it's another to outright lie and say I haven't responded to something I clearly did. First, I don't hold that "all land belongs to the entire human race." Like Pro I contend that those who labor on land have a right to peacefully continue laboring on said land. Unlike Pro, I think people should *only* be entitled to the land on which they work. Meanwhile, Pro hasn't justified owning property you don't work on. He claims this permits for "cheap housing" for certain people, yet this is obviously a bogus contention considering people need not rely on "cheap" housing in my system. Pro states, "She claimed that capitalism is inefficient and exploits workers... Con has suddenly [argued] that prosperity is actually bad and we'd be much better off poor." This is literally the most ridiculous straw man I've ever encountered in a debate. First, I never said capitalism was inefficient. Second, I NEVER claimed that "being poor" was good. Nobody can "be poor" in my system; my system rewards one's labor via allowing free market trade. One is only "poor" if they don't work. If they work, they have the same rights as everyone else who works. They have no more rights, including "property" rights. Pro claims I didn't respond to his R2 2C point regarding economic disadvantages of syndicalism. False. In that point Pro said syndicalism would bring us back to subsidence farming. I pointed out that Pro has not justified this claim. In response, Pro says "Con has not responded to the economic disadvantages." First, I don't have to since Pro never justified them to begin with! Second, I've explained ad nauseum how and why all of Pro's economic arguments from R2 are irrelevant! Pertaining to the Paris Hilton analogy, Pro posits one cannot be forbidden to transfer monetary wealth in the form of a present without violating negative rights. For the zillionth time, there would be no economic wealth in my system. Further, thus far Pro has agreed that labor on land leads to certain possession (which he considers property) rights. However he has never justified why those who do not work on something have the right to own it. In fact, that is the entire point up for discussion here. Pro's next argument boils down to "The actual data shows that the purchasing power of low and middle income households is far higher today than it was in the 60's and 70's..." For the zillionth plus one time, "purchasing power" is irrelevant to my system thus the comparison is moot. Also, just like Pro's flawed China example the U.S. has NOT been practicing capitalism, so it's dubious to credit said system with this success anyway considering all of the social program expansions and subsidizing. Pro remarks, "So strongly does she feel about [wage labor] that apparently she is justified in outlawing it." My system does not advocate government, so Pro is completely fabricating the idea that I would "outlaw" wages. He continues, "Shouldn't it be a decision for the individual?" Devising a currency system to facilitate trade is okay; restricting the rights of people on the basis of currency is not permissible. The definition of syndicalism Pro gives is from Mises, and begins "A naive and impractical proposal for the economic organization of society..." This is ridiculous. The audience has NO reason to accept such a biased definition, so Pro using that definition to justify his claim is obviously inappropriate. And finally, Pro hasn't proven that the syndicalist examples I've given were not as great as I said - again he simply asserts it. Pro hasn't remotely proven how capitalism "shows more concern for the happiness and welfare of mankind." Instead, he ONLY talked about how it's better at generating wealth (which is irrelevant). I've proven how capitalism is exclusive and oppressive, and my system cares more about the welfare of mankind - not just man. Go ahead and vote Pro based on your own bias, but my opponent has completely failed at upholding his burden. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...