The prediction that "voluntary exchange in an open free market" will cause a collapse in economic activity over time seems unlikely. It hasn't happend over the last 12 thousand years and with the strengthening of democratic institutions it becomes more unlikely every day.

A Free Market backed by Brytonic representative government create a self correcting system that avoids the problems Marx predicted.

You see that here ..... this site is proof

The prediction that "voluntary exchange in an open free market" will cause a collapse in economic activity over time seems unlikely. It hasn't happend over the last 12 thousand years and with the strengthening of democratic institutions it becomes more unlikely every day.

Free Market backed by Brytonic representative government create a self correct system that avoids the problems Marx predicted.

No, you cannot win. You do not argue about religion

I know a bit about Marxism, I think I could hold my own for a while. One thing I've noticed about their arguments though, they are completely ignorant of economic facts.

I'm not even sure they are wrong. I believe that capitalism is good at producing abundance. I also believe that according to supply and demand abundance reduces values. Thus if capitalism produces enough to make labor unnecessary (post scarcity) then capital will no longer have any value. In a post scarcity scenario, what remains is not a labor focused system, but a socialist one, where what matters is the need, not even the ability. To each according to their need, the end. Nothing needed from anyone.

But such a scenario isn't necessarily good either. Currently purpose is tied deeply to our labors, our contributions. After labor we will be free to self improve, or simply experience life however needed.

This isn't far flung, people that live autarkic lives (self sufficient) have all needs met by an established condition, such as the farmer that grows their own food, and lives off the land. There is in that situation still an amount of labor, but with technology as we already have it, the labor required is minimal. What do they do with their free time?

What would society do with minimal necessary labors? Work 4 hour work weeks and then hike, draw, read, study?

The Marxist has no importance here unless their time is spent laboring unnecessarily. Artificial scarcity and Monopoly of wealth would enslave such people such that they need to gain control over the means of production.

Such a scenario of artificial scarcity already exists. We have an excess of transportation and service labor which is merely mismanagement at best, but corrupt plutocracy at worst.

What measure of relation from the cost of living and the gross domestic production is observed at a common wealth level? How aware of our value in labor are we really?

I'm certainly not aware of it fully. As such, I don't think I could argue against marxists.

Depending on the willingness of the subject.are they available to new data? Can they process it and draw logical conclusions? Or are just gunna screech autisticly and refuse to articulate cogent points?

Depends what you mean by "win." If you mean I might be able to change the person's mind, then probably not.

If the debate were to be conducted in a grove in the woods of my choosing?
Really well.
I have a gun and the will to overcome their objections ...