90% of the British public should back my plans for a socialist revolution

" Even communism, which I do not advocate, is not as desperate and oppressive as Hollywood would make you believe." Hollywood, in fact, has historically wanted to make it look better than it is for most of its history. "As it happens, I visited and Russia and East Germany when I was a lad and, while the architecture was undeniably dour, the people seemed happy." When it was under communism? You realize that anyone caught NOT seeming happy in a communist country when foreign visitors are around gets the notice of the local Party and all it's various control measures? You know what happens when you get too much negative notice? That's what the labor camps in Siberia are for... and that's assuming they don't just take a shortcut and execute you. "Also, my wife grew up in the former Czechoslovak Republic which was a satellite state of the USSR at that time. Her father was the chief designer and director of a tank factory that employed 60,000 people. He could have worked on the production line but he studied (at the state's expense) and was promoted to the top in recognition of his ability and hard work." Anecdotes are the least useful sort of evidence, especially ones you can't prove. Besides, the USSR was inconsistent :). It had to be or it would have collapsed sooner. " As a result of his endeavours, when my wife was a kid, the family were able to take foreign holidays (vacations) and buy Western goods. They lived (and still live) in a fantastic apartment overlooking the river and the mountains and also had a brand new Skoda (okay, not the most respected marque internationally at the time, but still)." Sounds like he was a Party official :). "You see, there were incentives to do well, even under communism" Under inconsistent communism, and mostly for "doing well" by a bureaucrat's standards rather than the standards of someone who knows what they are doing. And even then, those incentives aren't enough, see also, the country collapsing :). Your first round, however, detailed your proposal. Your proposal removes all incentives in the name of equalizing incomes. Your proposal is more radical than the Soviet Union's, more consistent... and it would pay the price. " But my concept of a socialist state is one of a meritocracy, whereby one is rewarded for hard work" You have officially scrapped your resolution, by admitting the revolution you described in round 1 is not fitting with your concept of a socialist state, and therefore should not be supported as a socialist revolution. I accept your forfeit. :). Furthermore, we already HAVE a word for a country where one is rewarded for hard work (or, at the least, competent work, the hardness is a secondary matter), it's called laissez-faire capitalism. " Not only does it allow people the freedom to innovate, be creative and entrepreneurial," How can you do that if the state seizes all capital and redistribuites it without mind to the needs of entrepreneurialism, as you described in round one? "but it also nurtures future winners by giving the opportunity to succeed to all children, not just those of the privileged few." Except, of course, that it refuses the oppurtunity to succeed to anyone, as described in round one. Furthermore, under laissez-faire capitalism, there would be an incentive for a business model I've described many times for educating those among poor children with potential. A school can provide an education in exchange for a small percentage of future income. This gives the school an incentive, unlike any school ever before, to ensure the highest quality education available. Do you know what is in the way of it? The state wouldn't presently recognize such a contract. State control of the economy (socialism) is the only thing in the way of educating all capable children. " This is what is actually meant by distribution of wealth according to need. It has nothing to do, as my opponent suggests, with encouraging the workshy to rely on state benefits for an income" Your round one contradicts this, as it distributes the money to everyone. Again, you forfeit by conceding that your planned revolution is not socialist at all :). "but rather giving all in society the opportunity to progress and allowing them to reap the rewards of their efforts when they succeed. " Flatly contradicts Round One. It is not possible to simultaneously advocate stealing all of someone's income, which you've already advocated, and "allowing someone to reap the rewards of their efforts." You cannot have your cake and eat it too. My opponent has conceded that his debating has been incoherent, as the revolution he described is not in the least bit socialist per his definition, and therefore the resolution is nonsensical :).