He refuted my argument for several reasons but I disagree with his refutation.

 First, he said the development of technology does not always make our society better. But I think it’s not the problem of the development of technology but of the people who use it. If people use the developed technology in a right way, we don’t have to consider the negative effects of the development of technology.

 Next, he said that wide cooperation of governments and social organizations is the solution of imbalance problem but robots are not the efficient way. I agree that cooperation of governments and social organizations help to solve the imbalance problem. But I also think that robot will be helpful because robots could serve instead of human in almost everywhere.

 And lastly, he claimed that the quality of life is guaranteed only when one has a certain income. But I'm not arguing that robots should replace all human tasks. Instead, I argue that robot should do simple labor and human should do things that require high-level thinking or work related to robots. Using robots will eliminate the simple labor jobs, but robot-related jobs will be created. Therefore, people won't have to worry about having no income.