Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances

Notice how this motion is phrased‘Governments should switch from capitalism to socialism due to technological advances’Pro is representing the side changing the status quo. He has to convince you governments should switch from capitalism TO SOCIALISM. You should not vote for him if he fails to do this Con (Mr. Yamamoto), on the other hand, does not have to do this. I do not have to convince you governments should STAY as capitalism. All I have to convince you is governments should NOT switch from capitalism to socialism. There is a difference between these two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. In response to the whole round 3 argument of my opponent My opponent repeatedly claims that ‘Communal ownership and absence of class is ONLY used so workers can get paid based on the contributions (according to Karl Marx). ’ However, he has failed to give evidence on when or where he says so. On the contrary what Karl Marx said was ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. People are not paid based on their contributions, but based on their necessities. You can even see it in line 10-11 of the website in the 5th link my opponent has provided himself in his first argument. In case voters you think I am evasive, EVEN IF I accept ‘workers can get paid based on contributions’, I can still prove how socialism is worse than capitalism. Remember how this debate started? Remember the premise of this debate? The premise is that many people would be unemployed because robots are replacing humans as workers. Scroll up and reread Pro’s round 1 and 2 arguments. Pro says at the very beginning of this debate. ‘One source predicts that one third of the jobs will be replaced by robots by 2025’ If we are paying workers based on contributions, 1/3 of the people who are unemployed WON’T GET PAID AT ALL. The reason Pro has instigated this debate is to solve this problem. However, switching to socialism where resources are distributed based on contribution won’t change the situation at all. In terms of wealth distribution, socialism is just as bad as capitalism. Why switch to socialism then? Why change the status quo and risk stability or peace? Why spend government’s resources to decide the contribution of a person when the market can decide it for us? Either way, socialism is worse than capitalism In socialism:You pay by necessities? It is hard to decide what a person’s needs are. You have low incentives, low productivity, few innovations. (as proven in my round 2 argument) You pay by contribution? You risk stability and peace during the transition to socialism. You have to figure out how the government can decide the contribution of a person. Now I will move on to rebuttals of other less important issues in this debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. ‘However, it also has differences, making Socialism and Communism distinct. ’ ‘Concept of Communism, which is a stronger version of Socialism, is misunderstood by many people. ’ ‘As I stated in my response to no.4, Communism, which is basically stronger socialism’ Above are all quotes taken from my opponent in this very debate. One moment he says that socialism and communism have differences, making them distinct; Next he says that their only difference is the extent policies are implemented. If you put them into context, you will understand how inconsistent my opponent has been. My point still stands. 3. My opponent declared the definition of Capitalism to be ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state,’ at the start of his round 2 debate, before giving Adam Smith’s definition. The definition of capitalism he has given first is the sole definition of Capitalism in this debate. Adam Smith’s definition, whether he is the creator of capitalism, or which definition is more accurate are of no concern in this debate. My opponent has made a mistake in this debate and he is just trying to cover it up. 4. (For the sake of responding. ) ‘Therefore, government, which is built to give liberty to citizens, GIVES the natural rights to its citizens. ’Here, you are using it in the form of ‘give…to…’ which means to hand something to somebody. Figurative definitions of ‘give’ exist but that was not how you used the word. And, as you said, this has little relevance to our debate. 5. It is indeed true that I have failed to response to his assumption of robots creating more resources. Though voters please keep in mind that this is hypothetical. 6. The example of ‘free health care’ is invalid. 1. ‘Free health care’ is not a form a payment. 2. My opponent is cherry-picking an exception when taking beyond necessity is not considered beneficial. 7. I have not generalised in this debate. 8. "Capitalism Innovative, Socialism Stays Same" "Capitalism High Productivity, Socialism Low Productivity" Again, the premise for Pro’s rebuttals is his claim that resources in socialism are distributed through ‘contribution’ which he has failed to provide evidence for. Therefore, these 2 points still stand. Conclusion 1. My opponents failed to provide evidence to support his claim that distributing resources based on each person’s contribution is socialist. Therefore, in this debate, this should not be accepted as a method of resource distribution of socialism. Voters, please remember that in other words, my opponent is NOT ADVOCATING socialism where resource is distributed based contribution. (and 1/3 of the people don't get paid) Instead, he is advocating socialism where it is distributed based on necessity, where there is low incentive to work, low productivity and few innovations. Instead, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ should be accepted because I have shown its link to socialism by showing that it was said by Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. 2. Even if we accept the statement ‘workers can get paid based on contributions’. Pro has stressed many times in his arguments that 1/3 of the jobs will be replaced by robots in 2025. (which is also the premise of the argument and what pro means by ‘technological advances’ in his motion) Therefore, If you pay by contribution, 1/3 of the unemployed people replaced by robots won’t get a penny at all! In terms of wealth distribution, socialism is just as bad as capitalism. Why switch to socialism then? Why change the status quo and risk stability or peace? Why spend government’s resources to decide the contribution of a person when the market can decide it for us? Pro is representing the side changing the status quo. He has to convince you governments should switch from capitalism TO SOCIALISM. You should not vote for him if he fails to do this. Con (Mr. Yamamoto), on the other hand, does not have to do this. I do not have to convince you governments should STAY as capitalism. All I have to convince you is governments should NOT switch from capitalism to socialism and I have exposed the reasons socialism is worse than capitalism(it can be summarised into): In socialism: You pay by necessities? It is hard to decide what a person’s needs are. You have low incentives, low productivity, fewer innovations. (as proven in my round 2 argument) You pay by contribution? 1/3 don't get paid AT ALL You risk stability and peace during the transition to socialism. You have to figure out how the government can decide the contribution of a person. By rebutting my points concerning incentives, productivity and innovation using 'people are paid by contribution' Pro only dug himself a deeper hole to fall into. Furthermore, in my round 2 argument I have mentioned how capitalism is more SUITABLE for humans because humans tend to be selfish.