Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

First, I will give the definition of Communism Communism: A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership (while private property is abolished) and the absence of class. (http://www.investopedia.com...) 1. In your argument, you have defined socialism as ‘a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care.’ Yet later you defined communism as a stronger version of socialism. ‘Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people.’ ‘Communism, which is stronger socialism.’ so I will understand that you are defining socialism as a less strong version of communism as well. Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class. No matter what socialism will look like as a less strong form of communism, it will be fundamentally different to his first definition of socialism, which does not involve any absence of class on any degree.My opponent is inconsistent in his definition of socialism. This suggests that he is unclear about what exactly he is advocating which I think voters should take into account. 2. In response to point 2 of your argument Adam Smith’s definition of capitalism is irrelevant to this debate and of no concern to us. In this debate the definition of capitalism is ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are 1. controlled by private owners 2. for profit, rather than by the state.’ 1. Private companies do have control in Norway’s trade and industry. 2. The objective for these private companies was to earn money for profit. Under this definition, it is perfectly safe to say that Norway is a capitalist country. Therefore, my opponents’ analogy of using Norway as a socialist country is inappropriate. 3. In response to point 3 of your argument In the Declaration of Independence (United States) it is written that: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men' It is clearly stated that natural rights are NOT GIVEN by the government and cannot be given by our government they are given by our Creator (God). They are simply SECURED by the government. When slaves are emancipated, natural rights are not GIVEN to them. They are simply included in the protection of their natural rights by the government. My point still stands that your definition of the roles of government is not correct. 4. In response to point for of your argument No, communism ≠ equal pay pardon my ignorance in the previous round. Yes, Karl Marx did say once, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ in his Critique of the Gotha Program. However, you have overlooked my next sentence ‘Even if you reward their work by paying them wages, standardised or not, isn't that unequal to people who have jobs replaced by robots and don"t get paid?’ I have addressed both equal and unequal pay as I have said ‘standardised or not’ My point here is to show that either way, some form of inequality exists. On one hand, some people have to work while others don’t – this is unequal. On the other hand, people who work get paid while others don’t. Inevitably, some form of inequality exists. Furthermore, the government itself is an inequality with some people being more powerful than others. My point that it is impossible to prevent any inequalities and therefore it is not a job of the government still stands. 5. In response to point 5 of your argument What I meant was saying by providing ‘basic’, few essential needs your government is not fulfilling its duty to ‘achieve the highest standard of living of all citizens’ and cater to many more extravagant and unnecessary needs. In this case, the socialist government DOES NOT meet the requirement and my point still stands. Well, of course you can say that by providing the basic needs you are already providing your citizens with the highest standard of living, In this case, my point IS INVALID. But, IF YOUR SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT EQUATES BASIC NEEDS TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING, it shows us the poor standard of living in as a result of socialism and it gives us another reason not to switch to it. Either way, it favours my side that governments should not switch from capitalism to socialism. 6. In response to point 6 of your argument ‘As I stated in my response to no.4 Communism, which is basically stronger socialism, is also about distributing goods based on ability, and therefore, there will be incentive for people to work since the pays will be different.’ Yes, it is true that the pay is based upon abilities and necessities. However, you seem to confusing which is which. (But, as you said, the concept of these ideologies is misunderstood by many people.) Goods are not DIStributed based on ability. Goods are CONtributed based on ability and DIStributed based on necessity. This is clearly shown in Karl Marx’s famous quote from ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ (and also on the business dictionary website of which the link you have provided at the end of your own round 2 argument): ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ Secondly, in response to ‘there will be incentive for people to work’, I will say that I never stated that there wouldn’t be an incentive; what I am saying is: Yes, there will be incentive for people to work. It is simply lowered because of SOCIALISM. In conclusion, my opponent’s rebuttal is invalid because 1. My opponent has misunderstood the concept of how resources are distributed in socialism and because 2. My opponent’s rebuttal does not even challenge my point. Because of the following reasons, I maintain that the government should not switch from capitalism to socialism: I. I will further elaborate my point on how socialism lowers the incentive for people to work. 1. Taking based on necessity is a low incentive for people to work. Knowing that we can only take what is necessary under socialism, knowing that our desire for extra material possessions (that are more than the basic needs to sustain life) cannot be in any way fulfilled, it will be very likely that we will not even try to fulfil this desire. This results in a lack of motivation to fulfil our desire for these extra material possessions through working. Since there is no way you can get more than what you need for subsistence no matter how long or how hard you work because socialism prevents you to do so, you will merely work long enough or hard enough to earn the basic needs. In other words socialism lowers the incentive for people to work. 2. Adam Smith once said ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.’ (The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2) A person naturally cares for himself more than for others. Similarly, one naturally works harder if he is working for himself (capitalism) rather than for the state from which he takes only a portion of what he produced in his work back (socialism). In other words, one naturally has a higher incentive in capitalism and a lower incentive in socialism.Therefore, my point that socialism lowers the incentive for people to work still stands.I've reached the character limit and the rest of it is in the links. I don't know if this is against the rules or not, but I hope you won't mind for the sake of having a good debate. http://i.imgur.com...http://i.imgur.com...