Socialism is immoral

First off, you did not answer my question. By accepting this debate you have accepted the conditions and the guide lines that I have set out for this debate. I will not expect you to answer the questions above in your next turn but be aware that this will take points off of your final score. Also, yes; it was a trap, but a rather reasonable trap. In your second paragraph, you said quote " I say there are no inherent rights of man, because there is nothing that can never be taken from a man given the circumstances" First off, we are not discussing weather or not the rights man exist. Generally, most people accept that the rights of man exist, so lets try and keep away from discussing the subject of what constitutes a right or if they exist at all. Secondly, you said that " there is nothing that can never be taken from a man given the circumstances." This was either a typo or just poorly worded, please rewrite this correctly in your argument below ( what circumstances are you talking about?) First, lets get a general definition of socialism from our good ole friends at Wikipedia " Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." Lets start off with the social ownership of the means of production and management. For this to take into effect, things like factories and farms must be provided by the state to the people to manage as a collective. But, as is common knowledge, the government cannot provide you anything that it did not already take from someone else ( unless the government completely starts off from scratch and has to build everything from the ground up) Meaning, that if say a farmer who owns say 50 acres were to live in a socialist government, those fifty acres would no longer belong to him rather, they would be redistributed to the people. So even thought that the farmer was the one who worked those fields on his own, harvested those fields on his own, and sold the product of his fields on his own, he may no longer own his fields due to government redistribution. Now, the farmer must share his 50 acres with 50 other farmers. This process is called the abolition of private property and the redistribution of land; two core principles of socialism. As you can see here, the farmer was legally robbed of his lands. You may ask your self, what does he mean by legally robbed? Well, first lets just clarify just what robbing is. " the act of taking a possession from a person or group without consent and without compensation." When people hear the word robbery, most think about 'illegal' robbery. An example of this would be a mugger brandishing a knife at you and demanding your money. Then there is 'legal' robbery. An example of this would be a police or civil force coming on to your property, seizing farm equipment, seed, and livestock; then handing you documents for your forced resignation of your land to the state. The difference between 'illegal' robbery, and 'legal' robbery, is that 'legal' robbery is approved by the state ( usually by legislature) and 'illegal' robbery is not approved by the state. Ah, but once the state controls the means of production then doesn't it then provide the people with the land that it stole? Yes it does, kind of like a perverted version of Robin Hood. The difference between socialists and Robin Hood however, is that Robin Hood stole from tyrants, socialists steal from everybody who has and gives it to those who have not. Stealing from one person to give to another is theft plain and simple. Even if you are giving what you stole to another does that still justify the heinous act that you committed in order to obtain it? No! If you were mugged in the streets buy some thug, but then that thug gave the money he stole from you to a beggar on the street, does that make up for the crime he committed?This false sense of philanthropy is often over looked by socialists and those whom advocate it. I would have quite a bit more to write but I have business to attend to. I am not sure weather or not you are arguing for full blown socialism, like the one I have described above, or democratic socialism. Please tell me in your next argument so that I may be prepared to answer you back.