BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism allows for greater personal fulfillment.

Socialism presents a "mob rule" where the collective (or whomever controls the government) outweighs any decisions made by individuals concerning their own lives. Individual "needs" are dictated by the state and so niche markets are prevented from forming. This causes a lack of innovation and social progress because major trends and even fundamental changes in society and technology start in niche markets with very specific needs that would not be considered "efficient" for the state to provide.
Capitalism necessitates war for profit.

In What is Anarchism Alexander Berkman spoke of "the capitalistic interests of the various countries fight[ing] for the foreign markets and compete with each other there" and when they "get into trouble about concessions and sources of profit," they "call upon their respective governments to defend their interests . . . to protect the privileges and dividends of some . . . capitalist in a foreign country." According to an article from create real democracy there are 6 ways that corporations profit from war: control of strategic resources, building weapons, waging wars, reconstruction, debt and privatisation/corporatisation of the conquered nation. (See the extended argument page for sources on how to find out about war for profit in capitalism and about the military industrial complex, as well as their effects. For example, the size of the military industrial complex in the US economy is so large that since 2006 over $889 billion ($889,918,604,053) worth of contracts have been handed out, all of which lead to vast profits for US based corporations (see [13]).
Markets often go against human interests and values.

This is because of the way that they measure success. The way that markets measure success is through GDP. But the values that this gives to things is depraved in human terms. It under-appreciates things like using less gas (and thus polluting less), walking to work instead of taking a car, eating with friends, sharing, playing cards and doing a service for a neighbor without asking for money in return. In fact, many of these things subtract from GDP. Conversely, getting cancer, being in a car crash, being diagnosed with schizophrenia, getting a divorce and murdering someone can all, unfortunately, add to GNP. And, yet, despite the frequently counter-human nature of GDP, it is the popular capitalist measure of whether human societies are advancing or regressing.
Capitalism does not peacefully accept losses.

When capitalism is faced with troubles it's typical reaction (it meaning the elites who run the show) is to steal from the poor so as to offset the (minor) losses that the rich have experienced. A brief look at history will confirm this but here is a recent example that illustrates this point: One of the ways the rich countries have reacted to the 2009 economic crisis is to make massive land grabs in poor countries, mostly Africa. Now, most of Africa is in a food crisis but the rich countries have still bought huge amounts of land to profit off.
In capitalism, profit is made through exploitation.

Go to the extended argument page for further discussion of this point. But, at the very simplest, profit in capitalism is made through the extraction of "surplus labour value" (explained in extended argument) from the workers by the capitalists and through the subjugation and exploitation of people (and societies) at the periphery of capitalism by those at the core in order to extract wealth from them. Those are the two main sources of profit in capitalism (see extended argument for further discussion). This need for exploitation for profit means that capitalism actively fosters, and grows, inequalities, as well as massive amounts of suffering for most, while bringing immense profit and privilege for a few. An excellent overview of exploitation in capitalism and its causes can be found here and more detail can be found in Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization by Immanuel Wallerstein, and other more, detailed work, by Wallerstein.
Capitalism does not guarantee societies needs.

This is because social costs, and everything that affects third parties in a transaction, are externalised (see discussion of market prices later in debate). This means that social needs and costs are not reflected in pricing. As a result of this, the needs of society are ignored in capitalist society unless they are profitable - which they usually aren't due to the externalisation of social cost. The pursuit of profit, that is necessary under capitalism, also promotes anti-social behaviour, punishes solidarity and means that all winning takes place at the expense of other. For more analysis of this see Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel.
Socialism could do great damage to the environment.

Without private means of production there are no private citizens to hold responsible for environmental harm which certain industries may cause if not run conscientiously. Placing industry in the hands of the state equates to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, i.e. putting government in a position of conflicting interests. If it is actually possible, stateless socialism might avoid this if we revert to pre-industrial technology and a world population with pre-industrial sustainability i.e. euthanize the majority of the current pop. This would of course (one would hope) invalidate the reason we worry about environmental disaster e.g. the people whom it may harm and it makes future survival of our species much less likely in the face of potential large scale natural disasters.
Capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer

This process occurs because in capitalism there is a slope of wealth from the peripheries to the core. This is discussed at many points in the debate but for more detailed information see much of the work by Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin and other proponents of the World Systems Analysis. A recent example of this slope is that (at a very conservative estimate) Africa lost $854 billion in illicit financial flows to the wealthy countries from 1970 to 2008. This is a very conservative estimate and even that far exceeds the amount of aid (including tied aid and military aid - the majority of aid to Africa!) that has reached Africa in that time. These illicit cash flows are the result of the economic exploitation of Africa in such a way that wealth slopes from the poor to the rich (in this case globally). The total cost of the slope of wealth from the peripheries to the core is significantly worse than this: one estimate (cited in Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation by Patrick Bond) is that the "third world" loses approximately $1.8 trillion a year to the "first world" through surplus transfers occurring through various modes of exploitation. In effect, capitalism is the reverse Robin Hood - it robs from the poor and gives it to the rich.
In capitalism, businesses must put profit before everything else.

In a system (capitalism) with a built in need for growth and expansion (on every level) based on profit and on a level of competition such that every company that fails to achieve a level of growth and expansion on par with its competitors will go out of business, it is entirely intuitive that businesses can ONLY be about making profit and expanding - everything else is secondary to that goal. This is especially compounded by the fact that social costs are excluded from prices in capitalism (since they affect third parties) and so creating negative social costs is (practically) free and thus better for profit, while creating positive social costs or dealing with negative social costs is expensive and thus detracts from profits, and thus expansion and growth. In fact, corporations (the dominant business institution in modern capitalism) were designed (very consciously) to this end and that corporations must put profit before everything else is written into law! (information and evidence of this is given in the extended argument page). Information on the causes and effects of capitalism's need for profit to come first is scattered around this debate (you can easily find it), but particularly relevant for the effects are the discussions on how capitalism fosters imperialism, how profit is made through exploitation, the relationship between capitalism, militarism and war, and on the destruction of the ecosystem.
Capitalism has a neutral impact

Within a capitalist system, the environment will be harmed only if people choose to engage in economic activity that harms the environment. However, if they choose against engaging in economic activity that harms the environment, such as through "reducing, reusing, and recycling", purchasing products with organic materials or ingredients, buying clean energy, boycotting environmentally-unfriendly businesses, etc., then the environment will not be harmed. Under a socialist government the majority may decide to support activity that harms the environment, and the minority will be unable to refuse to contribute to that harm.
Capitalism provides people with what they actually want.

Capitalism is based on the idea that services and goods will exist only because there is a demand for them. They will not exist if individuals do not want them, as demand will fall, and a company providing a good or service will simply go out of business. Resources will not be wasted on the good and services not wanted, and instead will, eventually, be put behind those that are wanted. And, the system constantly adjusts itself to make sure it supplies exactly what people actually want, in exactly the amounts that are actually demanded. This is because a company will not generate enough revenue to sustain supplying more than is actually demanded. Socialism, conversely, relies to a greater extent on the government (theoretically the collective body of people), struggling to supply goods and services on the speculation of whether those goods and services are desired, but without a direct feed-back loop that kills supply of goods that are not wanted. Under socialism, a government employee may have the power to continue a service because it is considered to have the potential to meet future demand, or because it is believed to be important and in the interests of the public good. But, this program can be supplied for months and even years by tax revenues, and without the restraints of revenue to hold-back spending. Programs can continue for months, years, and even decades that should have died, with many resources being wasted in the process.
In capitalism, profit is made through exploitation.

There are many ways that exploitation is used bring profit in capitalism. The first is through the exploitation of the workers by the capitalist class. This was first described in Capital by Karl Marx and has yet to be disproved. Infoshop (an anarchist information website) describes this process (the extraction of surplus value from workers) quite succinctly: "Under capitalism, workers not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus. This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods and services, i.e. an excess of commodities compared to the number a workers' wages could buy back. The wealth of the capitalists, in other words, is due to them "accumulating the product of the labour of others."" (Quote is from Kropotkin.) A second way is through the subjugation of people and societies on the peripheries in order to extract wealth from them (see the extended argument on imperialism in the history section). An excellent overview of exploitation in capitalism and its causes can be found here and more detail can be found in Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization by Immanuel Wallerstein, and other more, detailed work, by Wallerstein.
Capitalism is destroying the world ecosystem.

Anyone familiar with recent history will know that our species is fast becoming suicidal. This is directly related to capitalism and it's need to continuously grow, in which shareholders require a greater and greater return on their investments. In general, this places larger and larger strains on the natural environment, as it means that more and more resources are being used to supply more and more products and services to each per person on the planet. And environmental costs are externalised in capitalist pricing (they affect a third party) and so it is economically efficient to ignore them, and economically necessary in order to keep maximum profits. Capitalism, by its structure must destroy the ecosytem to survive (see the extended argument page for explanations and examples of this). This shows that, under any moral or social definition of the word "work", capitalism cannot be considered a system that works, since its existence has caused the 6th mass extinction of earth's history and may very well lead to the extinction of humanity. For more detailed information on the relationship between capitalism and ecocide see [14], How the Rich are Destroying the Earth by Herve Kemph, The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment and Ecology Against Capitalism by John Bellamy Foster, The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World by Joel Kovel, chapters 3 and 4 of Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel and The Modern Crisis and The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy by Murray Bookchin, as well as [15] and [16], and for a concise source of information about the environmental catastrophe that we are facing see Little Earth Book by James Bruges.
Socialism wrongly incites antagonism b/w classes

Richard M. Ebeling. "The Failure of Socialism and Lessons for America." The Future of Freedom Foundation. March 1993: "2. Collective or Group Rights. For the advocate of socialism, the idea of individual rights has been a bourgeois prejudice and deception. For socialists, human relationships in society are defined and determined by class relationships and antagonisms. The idea of individual liberty has been considered a smoke screen to blind those who are exploited and oppressed from understanding the 'true' nature of the social order. It was for this reason that Martyn Latsis, a senior officer in the newly founded Soviet secret police, said in 1918 that, in judging the guilt or innocence of an accused, 'the first questions that you ought to put are: To what class does he belongs What is its origin? What is his education or profession? And it is these questions that ought to determine the fate of the accused."
Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but corporations

Corporations are totalitarian structures and are completely unaccountable to the public. Capitalism was designed around the interests of corporations, after they were designed by monarchs so they could keep their power over the rising middle-class and make money just by virtue of having money. Far from being ruled by individuals, capitalism is ruled by corporations who must, by design, continue to expand and make a profit, no matter how harmful this is to the individuals in society. And capitalism has always been ruled by corporations, to the point that they have become the defining feature of the capitalist ruling class. See here and here for explanation and analysis of how big corporations come to dominate capitalism and the effects on society as a result of it.
Socialism has inbuilt mechanisms to protect the ecosystem.

Since through participatory planning (then planning mechanism for genuine socialism) everyone gets a say in decisions that affect them, the people most affected by an environmental decision would get the most say and would thus override decisions that harm the ecosystem they rely on. Since to destroy an ecosystem would need the permission of the people who rely on it, it is almost inconceivable that socialism could harm ecosystems. In fact, the main currents of the ecological movements have been socialist, such as social ecology or eco-socialism. There is much more to this but this is the basics. For much more detailed information on how socialism can, and would, protect the environment see chapter 8 of Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy, Toward An Ecological Society and others by Murray Bookchin, The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace With Our Planet by John Bellamy Foster, [17] and others in the social-ecology and eco-socialist movements.
Socialist governments slow progress of markets.

The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system, economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone suffers. Ultimately, socialist systems are so inefficient and corrupt that labour has to be forced for the state to continue functioning (though this may also be a logical outcome of thinking less of the importance of individual freedoms compared to some abstract communal good). The failure of the USSR and other command economies shows the poverty of socialism and the failure of central planning, as on a smaller scale does the failure of nationalised industries in many western countries.
Capitalism divides people into classes

By creating the vast earning inequalities capitalism divides people into classes whereby some people are born into more privileged positions than others. Classes are also created in capitalism by some people owing the businesses and hiring others to be wage-slaves for them - the division between the capitalist class and the working class. A third class division that occurs in capitalism is the division between people who get empowering jobs and have a say in the running of society (coordinator class) and those who don't (working class). For a short analysis of class in capitalism see here and for economic analysis, including class and its creation, see Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel. For more analysis of class in society see The Makings of the English Working Class by E. P. Thompson, Economic Apartheid in America by Chuck Collins, Felice Yeskel and Class Action, and The No-Nonsense Guide To Class, Caste & Hierarchies by Jeremy Seabrook. On the other hand, socialism is classless so it doesn't suffer from these inequities and problems.
Capitalism has never been about groups of people working together to meet collective needs.

It has always been about the ruling class enriching itself at the expense of the ordinary people, particularly at the peripheries of capitalism. The only society that is truly ruled by the individual is anarchism, a la the ideas of Kropotkin etc., which is a form of socialism. Anarchism is ruled not by a state or a group of corporations, but by all the individuals in society making decisions together on an equal basis through federated council structures.
The argument that socialism could do damage to the ecosystem rests on two erroneous assumptions.

The first assumption is that socialism is a statist society. This is completely false: as socialism (at its core) is a classless society where workers own the means of production it is very rare (if impossible) that socialism could be a state society - there are exceptions (such as Kerala, Bolivia, etc.) but that is because they are transitioning towards socialism, and in doing so are gradually taking away state power and putting it in the hands of the people. The second assumption is that stateless socialism can only exist in pre-industrial societies, a lá the ideas of Zerzan and other primitives. This blatantly false: the largest and best example of a socialist society was the spanish revolution, which was an industrial society, and most ideas for socialist societies (such as Prouhon's Mutualism; Bakunin's Collectivism; Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism; Bertrand Russell's Guild Socialism; Pannekoek's Council Communism; Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism; Albert's and Hahnel's Parecon; Shalom's Parpolity; and others') have been for industrial societies. So both assumptions that the argument that socialism could harm the environmnt are erroneous.
Socialism has shown itself to be very efficient.

A prime example of this is the Spanish Revolution. Information and explanations are given on the Spanish revolution in the argument (and argument page) genuine socialism has greatly improved societies (in the history section) and information on how socialism in the Spanish revolution not only brought prosperity and improvement of life to the Spanish people, but also economic efficiency is given. To take a few examples, In socialist Aragon, in which 70% if the rural population had voluntarily collectivised (the rest had chosen not to and were given the freedom to do so), productivity rose 20% during the time of the revolution. According to Dave Markland "agricultural production and deliveries were strongest in the anarchist [socialist] areas" of Spain (see extended argument page for more examples). And all of this was achieved while fighting a civil war and a against a counter-revolution, both of which caused massive drains on the resources of socialist Spain. More information can be found in the argument page of socialism has greatly improved societies (in the history section).
Genuine socialism is not ruled by a central bureaucracy!

Genuine socialism means a classless society where everyone owns the means of production and income is still reward based (see the argument and argument page on examples cited against socialism are usually not socialism for more detail on how they are not). The examples of genuine socialism have not (!) been ruled by central bureaucracies (which are incompatible with genuine socialism) but have been ruled by the people. See here for the example of the Spanish revolution, see here for the example of the Zapatistas and here for a general list of small examples. and see A Living Revolution: Anarchism In The Kibbutz Movement by James Horrox for the example of the Kibbutzim. Notice how none of the genuine examples of socialism have any bureaucratisation (and much less than capitalism).
Everyone has a voice within a capitalist society

Whether rich or poor, educated or uneducated, a part of a majority group or a part of a minority group, all non-imprisoned adult persons have the freedom to choose how to acquire and utilize their money. They may purchase products made from recycled materials, or not. They may buy marijuana, or not. They may buy a book about capitalism, or not. People are entitled to offer any kind of work for any kind of pay, and people are entitled to choose where to work and accept or reject an offer of wages. Under a socialist system the freedom to acquire and utilize money is restricted based on the values of the majority. You may be required to or prohibited from giving money to a religious group, an abortion clinic, a restaurant chain, etc., depending on the values of the majority. If you are in the minority opinion you have little freedom to choose.