BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
capitalism

First of all, hello, and I look forward to a good debate! I'd like to see something better than capitalism arise, whatever that may be, but for now I'll play the devil's advocate. We had better define some terms first... Capitalism - Where individuals and corporations are in control of the means of production and distribution of wealth, or capital, and where capital (in the form of goods or money) may be invested in such corporations or producers and distributors if one so wishes. Although no state exists where everything is controlled by individuals or corporations, I shall assume that the instigator is referring to those parts of first world democracies that are, in fact, capitalist. In America, this would be best exemplified in steel companies or textiles industry. I shall also refrain from using the state in any way to mend capitalism. The instigator makes a vital and truthful point, that the rapid increase in technological advance has caused layoffs of workers. However, this fails to take into account one of the main factors that drives economics - ideas and thought. These are critically important, and occupy humans generally, technology thus does not replace us, but makes us more productive. Think of it this way - those workers that are laid off from producing steel will not suddenly become idle. They may be engaged in programming those machines that have replaced them, repairing those machines etc. And if all those jobs are taken, even GREATER amounts of machines will be produced by the displaced who may begin their own businesses or learn to keep up in terms of programming. This may seem ridiculous, as you might suggest that not everyone can design/produce/program more of these machines, but as the necessity for education grows, education will grow. This is evident in the west, where an individual often must know how to use a computer than a job. Thus innovation merely increases the output of humanity as a whole in terms of GDP per capita, as it increases the productivity of the individual. A programmer who works on ten machines is more productive than an individual who works at a manufacturing line. The manufacturing line, as a matter of fact, was more productive than merely making things step - by - step, but the key thing here is that those who had at one time worked step-by-step now work on manufacturing lines - competing (which is important in true capitalism) and thus keeping up with others. Thus mechanisms created by humans, as they have done in the past, will inevitably raise our standard of living on a capitalist basis rather than lower it. There is a lot to talk about in terms of whether capitalism is beneficial or not to the human species, and whether is will be or has been, so, since capitalism is the status quo, I will defend it rather than advance it, also because there is nothing to compare capitalism to suggested in the title, making it difficult to debate it's pros or cons. I await your response.
capitalism

the monetary system is capitalism's Achilles heel. that is because a monetary based economy can not last forever. computers and machines are taking over more and more jobs. it is estimated that in the coming years, human labor will no longer be necessary as robotics advance. if our jobs are being eliminated by machines then the monetary system will become obsolete because no one will make money in order to buy stuff. so we need to start moving away from a monetary based economy, otherwise we will suffer more unemployment until we destroy our society. according to physicist Michio Kaku, when scientists look for life outside of earth, they are looking for 3 different types of civilizations. they are called type 1,2 and 3 civilizations. however, we do not fit in this scale because we are not yet considered a civilization. our type of society is closer to a primitive cave man type of society than is to an advanced civilization. you could almost say that we are not yet civil enough to call ourselves a civilization, seeing as we still play by the same dog eat dog rules of the animal kingdom. the problem is that the transition from our society to a type 1 civilization is the most difficult because it requires us to work together for the common good rather than working for personal gain alone. in order for this transition to work, the power would have to be equally distributed to everyone rather than it being concentrated in the hands of a few as it is now. this scares the elite and may cause us to destroy ourselves before we can make the transition. this is why scientists believe that we havent discovered alien civilizations even though the math says we should have. so it may have been nearly impossible for alien cultures to make the transition, and in the process, they ended up destroying themselves before they could make the transition. but, we have no choice but to try to make the transition, because the advancements of mechanical labor are quickly rendering human labor obsolete. the sooner we start making the transition, the less suffering we will endure, and the better chance we have of avoiding the destruction of our species. and if we are able to make the transition from a monetary based economy, we will see a standard of living unlike any in our entire history.
capitalism

Social Credit is certainly not socialist! It's one of the many ideas put forward by capitalists in order to rectify what is wrong with pure capitalism! The fact that I am playing the devil's advocate in this debate does not change the quality of my debating in any way - I encourage you to do the same. You really shouldn't say you're not against capitalism when that's what we're debating... But I'll assume that you originally intended to debate the following... Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. rather than currency, which is entirely different. The above certainly does not preclude government intervention in order to rectify it, as you agreed earlier in the debate, allowing me to mention how capitalism will be solved in future. I'm not saying that robots becoming creators of inventions and such is impossible, but I think that the Social Credit system of taxing and redistributing wealth whilst maintaining capitalism and private enterprise will be the solution used rather than the much more radical one of ending capitalism altogether. Money games allocate resources better and thus move the economy forward. Nice dramatic ending, by the way, but it is incorrect to say I made no points. The following points I made will be summarized here... Con - Capitalism doesn't work because machines will take all the jobs Pro - Machines must still be owned by people, programmers will still be needed, private enterprise will merely expand and we'll become more productive. Con - But what happens when machines even make themselves and program themselves? I didn't say you had to go for pure libertarian capitalism, only the use of capital. Pro - Alright, in the far future wealth could be redistributed directly to the people, people who want advancement can own businesses, people will still be needed for ideas but mostly people will live off government distributed money, private property, investment etc. will still exist however. Con - Money hasn't always been used Pro - But in industrialized societies it is and from there we kind of got off topic. But, although I am playing the devil's advocate and I don't think that changes the strength of my points in any way, I think that pro should probably have answered my rectifications for capitalism and gone deeper into the definition of capitalism itself. Is capitalism currency? Investment? I enjoyed the debate and thought that the opposition had good ideals and thoughts in mind, although towards the end I thought that their argument became weaker. Regardless, I thank the opposition for an excellent debate, and hope that voters vote with me for the strength of my debate rather than be biased by my actual opinions.
capitalism

you shouldnt get caught up on labels because your idea of capitalism could be entirely different from someone elses. for instance you are arguing for capitalism while offering up solutions that most people would consider to be socialist and that doesnt really help an argument for capitalism. this doesnt surprise me because not only do you call yourself a socialist on your profile but you have told me that you agree with my side in the comments and you keep saying that you are just playing devils advocate. currency is useful if people are wage earners, but if machines take over all the jobs, then there will be no wage earners so the system must change from the current economy. obviously all industrialized nations use currency, technology isnt advanced enough for the economic transition. the fact that there are greedy people with money is the reason we might end up destroying ourselves rather than making the transition. either way, there will be no room for wage earning jobs when machines advance. the proof for a technological singularity is all around you. your average person or even poor people today have a better standard of living than royalty did in the middle ages due to innovations. if you went back a hundered yrs ago, many people wouldnt believe that people would be walking around with a wireless cell phone getting on the internet, so you cant just underestimate technology by claiming that this stuff isnt possible. i know that greed played a role in microsofts development, but once innovators achieve success, they tend to play money games a lot with their products. you must understand that im not claiming that capitalism isnt working, im saying that its time is coming to an end because of human advancements. so our success is putting us out of work and no work doesnt mix with capitalism. in conslusion, i want to stress that i am not against capitalism as my opponet who advocates socialism seems to be. i am only stating that humans are evolving and that our system will evolve with us. this isnt something i nessecarily want, but there is no choice. i know that a lot of people will just vote based on pre concieved notions but i dont think you can vote for someone who tells their opponet that they agree with them and still have a clear conscious. please help me by voting for con. even if you disagree with me, atleast recognize that my opponet made no points, and gave no reasons for his opinions. thank you.
capitalism

I suppose I had better restate a few things I said in the comments... "I'll respond to #s one and two first. Firstly, you incorrectly define capitalism as monetarism entirely. This is incorrect as "capitalism" necessitates investing, and this does not have to occur even if monetarism exists - i.e. the state pays you and you buy from the state, like in Soviet Russia. Points a, b, and c were used to explain the ensuing methods of correcting capitalism. You said capitalism could not work in the future, I pointed out how I thought it could - I didn't "arrogantly expect everyone to believe" me, I stated how these systems would rectify (and thus maintain) capitalism. Currency as an invention is useful because it is a good representation of capital. There are no industrialized nations that exist today that do not utilize this useful invention, and to say that it might work does not mean that it WILL work and be used in future. As for society owning machines, this (and once more, I'm playing the devil's advocate) will not work because individuals are greedy and this drives competition, and thus progress - see points a, b, and c. As for the singularity there is no credible proof that it will happen and even if machines did become conscious at some point they would still be property and those in possession of the machines would still be greedy, and that goes for anyone from individuals to the state to society. There is no reason to eliminate monetarism or capitalism because machines have become more advanced - capitalism merely has to be rectified using one of the methods I suggested, and it seems much more plausible that this will happen than that monetarism will be eliminated altogether and replaced by anarcho - syndicalism. As for operating systems, microsoft and apple wouldn't even have been developed if not for greed - they were both begun as small businesses and for capitalist purposes. What I am basically saying here is that monetarism can be maintained (and will be maintained) through various methods, mostly using government, as it always has. The methods (summarized above) would mean that money would still exist, in fact, under social credit, capitalism and investment would still exist, and society would not collapse. I'll repeat the solution I listed that will fix both capitalism and monetarism. SOCIAL CREDIT Companies control the robots, employ as few employees as necessary, everything (including individual enterprise) continues as normal, only businesses pay 90% corporate tax or something along those lines (remember, they're still making bundles of money off of selling products/services) and this money is redistributed directly to the people, who pay for services/products etc. This way private enterprise remains, individuals still have to be economical and pay for what they get and incentive remains. If incentives hold back advancement, why does our capitalist/incentive based system work?
capitalism

1. im referring to all types of caitalism. 2. you are obviously having a difficult time debating, seeing as you have made all of these claims in round 2 but you have not given any reasons or basis for why you believe it. in a sense you havent even been debating, you have just been stating your opinion and arrogantly expecting people to just have faith in what you say. 3. you act like society couldnt work without money but there are cultures and societies in the the past and present that dont use money at all. you even said yourself in the comments that you are in favor of a barter economy which still wouldnt work in a future civilization but it shows your hypocrisy. 4. the soviet union has nothing to do with what im talking about. you are using old conventional thinking. 5. a) society can own the machines in the future, it doesnt have to be individual ownership. b) your claim that machines wont have creativity has no basis and therefore should be dismissed. many scientists disagree with you. there is a growing awareness of something called the technological singularity that is predicted. russia has even started a congressional committee dedicated to figuring out ways to deal with the impact that the singularity will have on society. its called russia 2045. c) it doesnt matter what anyone thinks about the ethics of greed. there is no choice, either we adapt and have a great standard of living, or we ignore the fact that machines will eventually be able to take over our jobs leaving us poor which will probably lead to more conflict, if not the demise of our species. 6. once again, my argument isnt about the ethics of wage slavery or any of that, we simply have no choice. technology is rendering money obsolete. 7. incentives to be rich are cute ideas but it holds back technological advancement. that is why computer operating systems like windows always release updated versions of heir software that we must buy, rather than making it open source so that individuals can improve on it and share it for free. the internet is one of the first examples of how innovation is eliminating capitalism with things like media and software pirating and open source web browsers just to name a couple.
capitalism

Sorry, I thought that you were referring to pure capitalism! I was thinking that this one was going to be more difficult to debate. Monetarism is much easier to debate because money is nothing but a representation of capital. The fact that money exists, however, still necessitates private property if not the capitalist mode of production. I would contend here that monetarism certainly can survive, and I would go further to say that it will remain necessary in the future. Money has existed since early times and among various societies (including the Soviet Union) for the simple reason that it is easy and easier to handle and, in fact, to distribute evenly! There are various solutions to the problem of workers, (that is, the people who don't do the inventing and aren't interested anyhow) being laid off. Remember, capitalism, referring to ownership of private property, will still exist for several reasons. A) Machines cannot own themselves, they will thus be capital and private property. B) No machine in the foreseeable future, or perhaps ever, will be able to create ideas of it's own. C) People are inherently greedy, and that greed must be channelled correctly. SOCIAL CREDIT This was a large movement here in Canada a couple of decades ago. The idea of social credit was that wealth would be redistributed via capital gains and income taxes DIRECTLY to individuals. This way, there would be minimal bureaucracy AND maximum freedom. This social credit system originally pertained to the fact that workers' productivity was not paid to them in their wages, but it will work here. The amount of money would steadily increase and that money would be paid for whatever those workers needed, not ONLY solving poverty, wage slavery etc. but ALSO giving workers some incentive to earn more money via creativity etc., even though they will not have to. Therefore the inventors and owners of businesses get money, but that money is channelled right back to the people, who will use it to consume the goods that those owners of businesses etc. produce. Innovation and competition remain, and you can live a bohemian life if you want, but there is still incentive to be richer. STATE SOCIALISM This is Soviet "Communism". Under this system, the state controls virtually all means of production via nationalization, and thus workers are employed by the state, regardless of whether it needs them or not. The evident tyranny involved here could be pacified by direct democracy, i.e. voting for an individual to own a certain government organization. Workers would become part of an organization, and would be paid accordingly. Workers are paid, but obviously will buy back from the state. Workers could be paid in various ways, one way could be that they obtain more money for ways they find of contributing to the overall welfare of the state. Thus Einstein is paid better than Joe Bloggs but at the same time Joe Bloggs will never be out of work, whether needed or not. See comment
This House Believes Politicians Should Include Environmental Policy inorder toget elected for office

My opponent has not made a single argument and has forfeitted every round. To elucidate my case just for a moment, I do believe that politicians should focus on environmental policy, or at the very least include it in their problems. Climate change is a very pressing thread -- I would argue that it is the most pressing threat for future generatiosn -- and even has implications for food security, and thus has broader economic implications.I believe that we cannot simply allow the environment to deteriorate, and to this end, politicians should include in their platforms that they desire to properly address the environment. Not including it at all to me appears an incoherent case. Why would politicians ignore such a pertinent issue, especially with carbon emissions at 400 ppm?
This House Believes Politicians Should Include Environmental Policy inorder toget elected for office

I will be arguing that politicians should use environmental policy in order to bolster their chances of getting elected. I'd like to point out that my opponnet has not declared that there is any deception inherent in this resolution. He's not suggesting that politicians ought to lie about environmental legislation, or use it merely as a negotiating tool in order to get elected. Rather, the resolution addresses whether politicians ought to accentuate environmental policy when running for public office. Now, when politicians run for office, they are expected to offer their positions on a wide-range of issues -- the environment included. So excluding any one issue is a deviation from the status quo. Con is arguing that politicians shouldn't even include environmental policy in their platforms, so therefore he has the burden of proof in this debate to prove that we are better off in all respects for politicians to exclude environmental issues from their platforms. In order to win this debate, I must only provide a single unrefuted contention.
This House believes Creationism is not a productive form of education in public schools (

What has this guy been smoking? 1. Creationism should be taught to religioius education majors in college. I give a plethora of reasons why this is true. My opponent concedes the point. I have done so such thing. This is an awful misrepresentation of my arguments entirely 2. My arguments about the root cause of violence and hatred are not addressed. You have not explained what application the Creationist curriculum would provide to a civilised society. I have given references to groups and individuals who have promoted and caused violent and offensive acts towards individuals because of their beliefs. As mentioned in my prior arguments wars have been caused by the conflict between religions who do not promote reasons or critical thinking. 3. My opponent drops a series of arguments about the conflict of ideas promoting logical awareness and personal problem solving skills. This proves that creationism is "productive" in public schools. My opponent has basically conceded to the fact that logical awareness is necessary however again he has missed the fact that creationism is not a more productive idea than the invisible elephant in the room. He has responded by saying more people believe in a god than the idea I have proposed but that doesnt add to its validity. The world once believed the earth was flat. Now with verifiable evidence we are able to observe the Earth and recognise how it isn"t. 4. Finally my opponent concedes my points about reverse violence. I say that non-religious thinkers do not understand the viewpoints of people who believe in creationism. After verifying many sources who promote creationism I and many individuals who are both religious and non- religious agree how a religious belief should be a personal thing and never be imposed onto an individual or group. My opponents has not responded to this point with any credibility. My opponent has ignored the fact about how organisations like Creation today and PPsimons who promote creationism suggest they are a human service and are beneficial to society when they have not done a thing meaningful or productive in any shape or form. My opponent needs to provide how verifiable evidence about the Creationist curriculum proposed and explain what it would be superior to the current curriculum and explain how the young people would develop skills they could transfer into their careers. This should be challenging for him because I have never had a reference to anyone who has ever demonstrated any useful skills as a result of Creationism.