Free markets

My opponent didnt define free market in the debate.

His ranting in comments should just be ignored, as it is not part of debate.

Free usually means that it costs 0 $.

Thats what free means when we talk about things and market is a thing.

My opponent has this silly idea that things in store can be free.

I guess he went full communism. You never go full communism.

It is true that all countries currently in the world are Communist countries and that Communism is the only system that works.

But still, my opponent proposed full Communism where everything is free. 

That is absurd, so voters should just vote for me without further reading the debate.

My opponent gave no definitions, so the only thing we can conclude from topic is what we find in most dictionaries.

Since all dictionaries support the definition I gave, definitions go to me so we are forced to use my definitions. Plus, my opponent didnt present any definitions, so there is no need to give importance to any of his ranting in round 1.

My opponent still hasnt provided definition of a free markets in a clear way. 

I am not even sure what he wants to debate at this point.

"an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition"

So my opponent wants to abolish taxes, because they restrict competition. I think we will find how such idea is absurd, but the absurdity doesnt stop there.

" an economic system with only a small amount of government control, in which prices and earnings are decided by the level of demand for, and production of goodsand services"

Prices decided by demand? The only way to enforce that is to abolish taxes, because they affect prices.

I think my opponent needs to sit down and think what he actually wants to debate, because so far this has just been some rambling with two contradicting definitions being given.

He went from "unrestricted competition" to "small amount of government control (restriction)".

Well, anyway, since he didnt present an actual definition but gave two contradicting definitions in round 2, and since round 1 only had my definition, and since my definition is simple and non-contradictive and is same in every dictionary, the definitions go to me and with that, the debate too since my opponent conceded that markets should not be free.

By adding in that one word in the beginning, only, the context completely changes. It means the government does the bare minimum to make sure everything functions (like law enforcement).

As for taxes, it may not be such an extreme idea to reduce taxes significantly. When everything is privatized, the prices will sort themselves out due to competition (see argument 1) and we won't need as much taxes, only for law enforcement and military. In fact, in the libertarian (free Marketeer) world view, taxation is considered theft, a sentiment that I do agree with. it is an involuntary exchange of goods or money. if I want to donate to healthcare, I'll donate to healthcare by myself, thank you!

As for social programs, they can be abolished in favour of fraternal societies. you can look at this video if you want a more in depth overview, but basically, they are societies in which you join to receive benefits, but also takes a fee in order to be able to pay for other's benefits. they are a good alternative to taxation, and have been tried before and succeeded. They are completely voluntary and (mostly) have freedom of association.

anyways, I believe that's it. I hope I have persuaded you to vote for me, and my opponent that free markets are what I define them as and that they work (although the second one is highly unlikely)!

Okay, I think I win because of these absurd points.

Country cannot exist without taxes, that much is clear.

Extend all arguments.