In several of these, you're not really providing anything of substance to argue against - you're giving very general statements with little or no explanation of why you think they're the case. For some of them I can guess what's behind them from experience of similar arguments, but I'm not going to try and pre-empt them here. Well, here I go:
1. What socialist conceptualisation of 'public ownership' do you have in mind that you think "sound an aweful lot like private property"?
2. > Socialists tell us capitalism is slavery, yet any action in a capitalist society is made voluntarily.
I reject this claim.
Socialists advocate for taxation
Not necessarily. And even those that do probably wouldn't consider it a defining feature of 'socialism' as a concept.
3. > Socialists literally think that value is property
I've no idea what you mean by this.
4. > Socialists tell us capitalism is fundamentally based on greed and selfishness
I wouldn't say it's fundamentally based on it. It encourages it and it makes up a big part of it sure, but that's not quite the same thing.
yet the entire socialists theory is an attempt to justify taking other peoples incomes and goods! And with the initiation of the use of force!
Again, I reject this claim. If you make unsupported assertions, I'll simply dismiss them. Not much else I can do.
5. > Yet, in a capitalist society socialists can all get together as workers and own their own means of production, there's nothing stopping them from doing this.
There's nothing 'stopping' an illiterate man from reading a book, i.e. no-one will forcefully take the book away, or cover his eyes if he tries to read it, etc. But he still can't read the book, because that's what illiteracy means. Of course there's a continuum, but the more he can read, the less illiterate he is, by definition.
Similarly, while it's true that you can have socialist worker-run enterprises and co-ops within a predominantly capitalist economy, they are a non-capitalist part of the economy, and the more of them there are, the less capitalist and more socialist the economy, to the extent that if the economy was completely made up of them, it would no longer be capitalist, but socialist, just as if the man could completely read the book, he would no longer be illiterate, but literate.
It is really socialism that is oppressive as everyone would be forced to do things a certain way under their imagined society.
Again, I reject this claim, and with there being no expansion on it, I can't say much about it either.
6. > Socialists all argue against private property, but when challenged never offer to give up their property
It seems you're not paying attention. Under the conceptualisation of private property they're arguing against, they (most likely) don't have any to give up.
Also, it's worth mentioning that property is more about relations between people regarding objects than about objects as such.
7. It's interesting that you choose the word "consistent" here; facts and assumptions that are consistent with a theory do not prove that theory correct, they simply don't disprove it. For example, the earth being billions of years old is a fact consistent with Old Earth Creationism, but OEC is still wrong.
8. This is a non-sequitur. My rejection of your claim does not require that I make the same claim.
9. Once again, far too general, nothing to respond to, though it's obvious you're making the ECP argument. Can you expand and give your version of the ECP so I can actually respond?
10. > How come this isn't also true for the capitalist who labors to create the means of production???
Capitalists don't labour to create the means of production, other labourers do.
