Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

Rebuttals and Conclusions only this round please. No new arguments. Before I start my argument, I will give the definition of "contribution" and "quality/quantity of work", which are used interchangeably in my argument. Ex. If Bob bakes 100 tasty bread while Joe bakes 100 burnt, terrible bread, Bob earns more money. (Since Joe's quality of work would be near zero) Ex. If Bob bakes 100 tasty bread while Joe bakes 150 tasty bread, Bob earns $100 while Joe earns $150. 1. "Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class." I would like to EMPHASIZE that the Communism's 2 key features aren't communal ownership and the absence of class. In order to find what is the key feature of Communism, we are supposed to look at the reason Communism was created. Karl Marx, the creator of socialism and Communism, was born in 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution. During these days, money was not DISTRIBUTED based on how hard or effectively people worked. The peasants (and some child workers) worked 16 hours a day under grim working conditions (mining accidents could lead to death and accident on Spinning Jenny could chop some fingers), lived in an overcrowded apartment full of disease, while the rich did not have to work and could just earn money by using their capital to gain access to limited resources (machinery, coal, etc.). And the capital most of the rich people received were inherited from ancestors. Under these circumstances, would a peasant worker not find their situation (and the government) unjust and unfair? Communal ownership and absence of class is ONLY used so workers can get paid based on the contributions (according to Karl Marx). The key feature of Socialism and Communism is justice/equality/impartiality. I would like to say that the quote "Communism has 2 key features, communal ownership and the absence of class" is a generalization; a government could be Socialist/Communist with legalized private ownership if the government intervenes so people could be paid based on Contributions (socialism) or Contributions + Necessities (Communism). Saying Communism is about public ownership is like saying a rectangle is a square because square is a rectangle. 2. "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." Socialism and Communism is Different; I would like to state that my opponent is using another generalization to make a false conjecture. It is true that Socialism and Communism has similarities. "Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning."[1] I would also like to add that the public ownership is only used to achieve more impartial distribution than capitalism. However, it also has differences, making Socialism and Communism distinct. "Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism."[1] "The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds" that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical"it is an ultimate goal" [1] According to this quote , Socialism is about distributing goods based on the contributions. Communism is about distributing goods based on necessities and contributions. Socialism's characteristic of distributing goods based just on contributions are that is similar to Capitalism than Communism, giving individuals chances to work for themselves. It can be also said that Socialism is more impartial than Capitalism given that Capitalism is about letting people earn money in any method (with no restrictions against monopolies, inelastic demands, and uneven resource distribution) in HOPES that it will distribute money/goods/services based on quality/quantity of work. I am sorry for not mentioning this because I lacked time. 3. "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." " Firstly, I would like to state that there were no agreements on the definition of capitalism in the beginning of the debate and therefore Adam Smith's definition is valid. Secondly, the definition of of capitalism has changed over time. There is a discrepancy between the dictionary's definition of capitalism and Adam Smith's definition. Like how the word "myriad" meant 10,000 in old times while it means "an extremely great number" in current days, the definition of "capitalism" also changed. Capitalism meant no or little gov. intervention to Adam Smith, but it now means "private ownership" because private ownership was formed BECAUSE there was little/(no major) government (which declared themselves capitalist) . Lastly, Adam Smith is the CREATOR of capitalism. He knows the intentions and purpose of capitalism. 4."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. " I would like to state that this argument has little relevance to the topic AND the word "give" can also be used figuratively so it would mean "grant" or "secure". I apologize again if you had a different definition of the word "give". 5. "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." With robots (which will be capable to take over one third of work force while being able to work without incentives), there WILL be superfluous resources so that the basic needs won't be the highest standard of meaning. I would like to let voters know that my opponent had not responded to "robots leads to more resources" argument from the bottom of no. 4 argument, and will like to declare that my opponent also agrees on robots creating more resources. 6. "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." "1. Taking based on necessity is a low incentive for people to work" "V. Socialist System of distributing resources is flawed or impractical" Firstly, Socialism distributes wealth based on the quality and mount of work (no.2 of my argument). You are talking about Communism. The discussion is about Socialism, not Communism. Secondly, giving necessity based pay isn't that bad either. Many Nordic country citizens have high standard of living although health care is need based. (free health care if sick, not free if not) I admit that it is my mistake to describe Communism as "a stronger version of Socialism". However, my opponent also used generalization to describe Socialism and Communism (socialism also has characteristics of capitalism) . My FINAL Definition of Socialism and Communism is posted above. Since I am running low on space, I will only briefly counter the other arguments "Capitalism High Productivity, Socialism Low Productivity" Socialism has higher incentives than Capitalism because Socialism is only about the quality and quantity of work being done. In Capitalism, Capitals (resources) also bring money so those with more resources earn more than the quality/quantity of work done. "Capitalism Innovative, Socialism Stays Same" Socialism distributes goods based on quality/quantity of work and innovations also count. Vote Pro! 1 http://www.marxmail.org...