Argument: Examples cited as socialism are usually not socialism
The Soviet Union was not socialism. Using the definition from the last point, one comes to the conclusion that the Soviet Union was about as socialist as the United States (i.e. not at all). Therefor, the argument that says socialism has shown it's potential to destroy the world is fallacious since it is showing how the Soviet Union was helping to destroy the world. That is like using the failures of feudalism to argue against capitalism.
They are totalitarianism. Once again: Socialism is a classless society in which everyone owns the means of production. The examples given under "real socialism" do not even attempt to achieve this. They are run by the co-ordinator class. And the reason that people didn't work enough in them is far more likely that they were disempowered by being forced to work for someone but unlike capitalism they were not forced to work as much. This side has given examples of truly socialist (or close to it) societies and they do not face that problem.
This side of the debate has explained repeatedly that the "socialism" in the Eastern Bloc was not socialism in the slightest. The core of socialism is that workers own the means of production - without that there can be no socialism. Did workers in the Eastern Bloc countries own the means of production? No, these countries were dictatorships in which the workers did not own the means of production. (It is highly improbable that a dictatorship in which the workers own the means of production could exist). Socialism also has to be classless and calling Eastern Bloc countries that wouldnot make much sense. So it follows logically that the Eastern Bloc countries had very little to do with real socialism. So using the failures of the Eastern Bloc countries to criticize socialism is like using Feudalism to criticize capitalism: it makes no sense.