Profit within Capitalism is a result of the exploitation of the workers

1.1.Unfortunately Con does not seem to understand the scientific theory well enough to use it in an argument. First he claims that I have the burden of proof to show scientific evidence but does not deem to say what scientific evidence and for what he requires them. He is free to request falsification on anything or point it out himself, but he hasn't done so. In fact, the Labour Theory of Value is far more scientific and based on actually observed phenomena rather than imagined "axioms". He also claims that falsification cannot be used as proof. This is unfortunately showing that he does not understand falsification. He claims that gravity does not need to be falsified, but in fact it has been. Might I remind my opponent that the theory of (Newtonian) gravity has been falsified and then rejected by Albert Einstein in favour of the General Theory of Relativity? Mere observation of an event is not enough to reach any conclusions on what is causing it. So people could obviously observe gravitation occurring but could not explain why. Similarly looking at what most people do in the current society and claiming a "Law of Nature" is very bad methodology. It needs actual research to manage to find the actual cause instead of imagining it and deciding on it with correlation. Do most people save today in exchange of money because of the "Natural Law" or because there's always an interest rate? Would people save without interest? He insists that me giving him all my money without interest would be a proof of anything. But he misses the reason why people save money and how it relates to the society around them. As if by me sending him all my money (charity?) he would forfeit the debate as having been "proven wrong". This is nonsense. I've already provided falsification which surprisingly my opponent accepted(!) but nevertheless preferred to stick to his theory. 1.2. My opponent's argument is that when there is no interest, then people will obviously save without interest in any way they can. So people would value future money more than current money. As such he's basically conceded the argument even though he may not have realized it. He's admitted that the only reason why we widely observe people saving for interest, is because interest is currently available. If it was a "natural law" people would simply not be saving when no interest was available, but obviously they did. As such, the cause of saving today is not a "natural law", but the currently existing interest rates, which are often setup by market-external entities (ie the state). In fact, it is precisely the external factors beyond individual preference that decide who does what choice in terms of saving. It is exactly because of social position that the wealthy are always willing to save and provide funds while the working class choose to get money upfront and get into debt. 1.3. Waiting theory: I'll let Proudhon speak for me: [The loaning of capital] "does not involve an actual sacrifice on the part of the capitalist" and so "does not deprive himself. . . of the capital which be lends. He lends it, on the contrary, precisely because the loan is not a deprivation to him; he lends it because he has no use for it himself, being sufficiently provided with capital without it; be lends it, finally, because he neither intends nor is able to make it valuable to him personally, -- because, if he should keep it in his own hands, this capital, sterile by nature, would remain sterile, whereas, by its loan and the resulting interest, it yields a profit which enables the capitalist to live without working. Now, to live without working is, in political as well as moral economy, a contradictory proposition, an impossible thing." [Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service] Basically the waiting theory fails because it asks us to imagine absurdities. It asks us to imagine the large sacrifice of the multi-millionaire deciding _not_ to buy a jet-airplane or a 6th House and save the money instead. This we're told is a huge sacrifice that requires reward. I'll leave the audience to decide on the absurdity of this. 2. My opponent's argument appears to be one of confusion: "I am unaware of anyone who has ever gotten infinitely rich." This basically shows that he has not understood my argument. I am not saying that people will become rich (which is relative) but that risk makes them have an infinite return to investment. A ROI of multiple times per cost, a reward that no other kind of risk apparently deserves. He claims that the market will arrange how much the original investment is worth in multiples of cost, but that only makes sense if the company at some indefinite part of the future goes under. Which may not even happen as a company incorporates and becomes larger. One only needs to look at corporations that survive for hundreds of years now to see that. Again, on a theoretical level, the ROI of a capitalist investment risk approaches infinite while the ROI of any other, such as building a new commodity, or taking a new job in a new area, is always limited to some (at very best) small multitude of its cost. The con has not explain why Capitalist risk deserves such preferential treatment. My original argument I believe still stands. 3. The pro seems to argue by bringing up an apparently easy target, the cooperative, but then goes ahead and argues for me by pointing that in fact the cooperatives do not get investment other than a few "ideological zealots", which amply shines the light on the actual cause for them not becoming the dominant company type within the current system. The Con makes the mistake of circular reasoning. His argument can be summarized as such: The Capitalists are successful because they have the "creative genius". And we know they have the "creative genius" because otherwise they would have been driven out of business and be Capitalists no more. One can defend a totalitarian dictator with the same argument. Unfortunately it will take something more than begging the question to prove this "creative genius". Something such as actual research on the "genius" of management and owners. The Con then asks me to explain why the programmer deserves only part of the reward when he received all the risk. He actually worded his example to make the programmer seem to be getting all the risk while only part of the reward. That is an intellectually dishonest tactic. In fact, the Con example is especially complex as he selected a sector where duplicating the creative work is basically zero-cost and thus seemingly making the work of the programmer to be the most important. This example can be countered but requires as well a complex argument in order to clarify its variables. But if we take the example and assume that no Internet exists and the act of copying the content to disks is a lengthy and complex procedure (and thus requiring the skills of someone to make the disks) then I would again argue for an equal share. In fact, in such situations it was the copying and distribution that took the lion's share of the profits and not the "creative genius" as can be seen from the record industry or even the video game industry where it's the publishers that are the most wealthy and not the developers. Again, I will remind the audience that taking production of digital goods is an exceedingly complex subject and used explicitly to muddle the waters. The Con could have used a simpler one, such as of a person making the wine and another person bottling them, but he didn't. This was not on accident. Finally, I am disappointed that my opponent cannot abstain from poisoning the well. His unfounded claims of "oxymoron", his vague calls of "evidence exists" when he has obviously failed to show even the smallest amount in the current discussion and his lengthy apologetics of the current system all avoid the current debate and appeal to emotion.