Round three and my opponent has gone off at something of a different tangent. They no longer present an argument against the LToV based solely on the "incorrectness" of it's actual ability to perform economically. But rather an extended discussion taking in a wider range of social ethics and values.
So; I think that it would be foolish of me to now be fully drawn into a protracted discussion regarding the practical ethics of LToV, rather than just sticking to my original premise, which as a philosophical social ideal the LToV has always been nothing other than correct. Backward maybe especially if we trace it's antiquity all the way back to Thomas Aquinas and beyond, possibly all the way back to Aristotle.
Though I still firmly believe that it is correct to assert That the principles of a LToV were as relevant to the social idealists of the Twentieth Century as they were to the idealists of the Fourth Century B.C.
Therefore the relevance of the thought has always demonstrated it's correctness within the context of the thought, irrespective of how economic reality has inevitably always played out.
After all it's so easy to argue economic incorrectness once you have acquired all the necessary information.
Despite my opponents tugged heart strings and emotive references to Nazism:
The morality or correctness or inequality of society is a separately debateable issue. Though the transferability of said argument should be obvious to the seasoned debater. To draw upon my opponents rhetoric; are they attempting to say that current systems do not "punish" on the basis of social inequality and similarly do current systems also not promote greed. To this end I think that it's fair to suggest that my opponents approach to social morality is somewhat ambiguous and questionable.
Given the somewhat hypocritical nature of Marx, in so much as he espoused social equality from the comfort of his so obviously privileged status. One would concede that "pie in the sky" is not an unfair comment. But once again, if the abstract thought is sound then despite any shortcomings the thought is nonetheless correct.
Irrespective of our shared criticisms of the philosopher, I think that it is still fair to assume that Marx's thoughts were promoted with all seriousness, rather than as deliberately nonsensical ramblings, as my opponent would perhaps have us believe.
"Fantasy Worlds" are:
One persons reality is often another persons fantasy, that is as true today as it always has been irrespective of how society might perform economically. Similarly the freedom of thought and the freedom to create "abstract" fantasy is just as time worn, if not more so.
As far as I am concerned Big Brother, the ability to conceptualise and fantasise, renders itself irrevocably correct. The practicable correctness or incorrectness of the internal fantasy remains irrelevant until externally demonstrated
For now at least, the fundamentality of the physiological process, absolves the internality of thought of any blame.
Even though the we now view the practicable applications of Nazism as being so completely immoral, within the heads of Adolph Hitler and his acolytes the thought, the abstract idea, the fantasy was nonetheless correct.
Therefore the thought irrespective of morality, was always correct, even if not always demonstrably practicable or moral.
My final thought for Round Three would be that my opponents argument would have been far better suited by a different adjective. Unworkable, impracticable, unfeasible etc. rather than using the word "incorrect". I certainly would not have taken up the challenge so readily if this had been the case.
Because as I see it, the practicable correctness or incorrectness of any theory is easily demonstrable and observable with hindsight. Whereas the theory as an abstract idea can neither be deemed to correct nor incorrect unless implemented and subsequently scrutinized.
Which begs the question:
Has the Labour Theory of Value ever been truly tested?