BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism has shown itself to be inefficient.

For example, by 1995, after neo-liberal deregulation which brought a purer capitalism than the social democratic era that preceded it, 95% of financial transactions were speculative and only 5% were related to the real economy. That means that only 5% of transactions actually involve production and trade of goods and services and bring tangible improvements, affecting the lives of ordinary people. On the other hand, 95% of economic transactions in capitalism just go into setting prices and bringing profits to the capitalist class, or in some cases the upper middle class, generally at the expense of the working or peasant classes since they are excluded from financial speculation. The speculative transactions waste time that could be spent working on production and consumption which affect the ordinary people, and the profits made through speculation are coming from their wages - which goes part of the way to explaining the decline in real wages during the neo-liberal period of capitalism. That figure is the generally accepted figure but the source used here is Profit Over People: Neoliberalism And The Global Order by Noam Chomsky.
Market transactions exclude third parties.

These third parties could be exploited workers, murdered trade unionists, people who suffer and die from pollution, people who are impoverished, whole species (including humanity) that could get wiped out from climate change. Since third parties are excluded from prices, capitalist prices cannot reflect social cost and end up being extremely destructive. See the section on market prices for more detail. And the idea that transactions in capitalism do not harm either party is a myth. See the argument on exploitation (in the inequalities section) and the argument on imperialism (in the history section) for a rebuttal.
People generally prefer capitalism to socialism.

"Last November [2009] a survey of 29,000 people across 27 countries (almost all democracies) by GlobeScan and the BBC World Service found that only 23% agreed that capitalism is "fatally flawed" and needs replacing. Some 51% believed it had problems that could be addressed through regulation and reform, and a further 11% were happy with the system as it is." (The Economist, "Old dogs and new tricks", February 13th 2010)
Capitalism grossly mismanages resources.

According to the UN "The Right To Food: Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2002/25” 36 million people starve to death every year despite the fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed everyone and according to the Food And Agricultural Organization Of The United Nations' 2008 report the world could produce twice as much food. In other words, we produce enough food to feed everyone, and we could produce twice as much, but someone still starves to death every second. If that is not mismanaging resources then what is?
That poll shows that capitalism is not popular.

More than twice as many people think that capitalism is fatally flawed and needs to be changed than people who think that capitalism is good as it is. It is very difficult to figure out the meaning of the majority for reforms because it is impossible to tell whether it is a result of the endless propaganda preaching that there are no alternatives to capitalism or whether it is a result of people thinking that reformed capitalism is the best system. No matter what that means, the fact that capitalism is so unpopular despite endless propaganda (through the mainstream media, all the corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty by Alex Carey and see here for a brief overview), public relations campaigns, the internalised effects of advertising, and the way that people internalise their society) shows how deeply people are against capitalism. And the poll was from the rich countries, where the people have benefitted from the exploitation of others. Polls were not taken in the third world countries that have suffered the most from capitalism (a couple were and the results were obvious: in Mexico 38% of people think that capitalism is fatally flawed and that figure is 35% in Brazil - it is unlikely that that many people have felt their societies were fatally flawed (with all the factors mentioned earlier and with the prevalence of reformism everywhere) in many other societies and those figures represent massive dissatisfaction with capitalism. Capitalism is so unpopular that people in Russian (61%) and Ukraine (54%) would rather the utter tyranny of the Soviet Union. Results of the poll can be found here.
Socialism provides people with what they actually want.

In collective socialism workers' and consumers' councils interact through the participatory planning process to determine what is produced and consumed. This means that what is produced is exactly what the consumers demand. And since people take part in decisions to the degree they are affected, what is produced moves even closer to what is socially wanted and responsible. Mutualist socialism is dictated by supply and demand so it provides in the same way that capitalism does. However, advertisements in capitalism are designed to brainwash consumers into buying things that they do not want by creating subconscious attachment to the product. This means that the things are produced and sold do not reflect what people want per say, but they reflect what will make profit for the top corporations that control capitalism. In short, socialism provides people with what they actually want, and need, much better than capitalism does.
Without rights and property, tyranny of majority reigns

One basic problem with socialism is that it raises "the public good" over many individual rights, such as the right to private property (or at least socialism tends to infringe on the right to private property to a higher degree that capitalism [and maybe less so that communism]). The larger problem is that the idea of "the public good" can be used to justify various kinds of abuses and infringements, and even possibly human-rights abuses. For example, the majority may decide to punish former wealthy land and business owners in order to discourage inequality in the future. The problem is that there is no limit to the ways in which abuses can be justified in the name of "the collective good". Individual rights, such as the right to private property help protect against such abuses, which can range from minor injustices to full-blown human-rights violations.
Government in capitalism is not compassionate.

It usually serves the interests of (and is comprised of) the elite. The elite in capitalism means the people who benefit from the system: the people who own the means of production and the people who have a monopoly on empowering jobs. They use government to protect their interests and bring themselves further profit and better conditions. The conditions for the poor must be worsened as a by-product because in capitalism to increase my wealth I have to take wealth from someone else. See here and here for explanation and analysis of government in capitalism.
Other polls show that socialism is more popular than capitalism.

For example, according to a recent gallup poll (found here) people in 17 out of 19 Latin American countries are more likely to call themselves socialists than capitalists - For example in Paraguay people are 5.37 times ad likely to call themselves socialist than capitalist (making a ratio of 5.37:1 in favour of socialism); that number is 4.33:1 in Nicaragua; 4.2:1 in Trinidad and Tobago; 3.33:1 in Uruguay; 3.27:1 in Venezuela; 2.74:1 in Costa Rica; 2.66:1 in Ecuador; 2.45:1 in Argentina; 2.22:1 in Peru; 2.12:1 in Bolivia; 1.71:1 in Dominican Republic; 1.69:1 in Chile; 1.69:1 in Columbia; 1.67:1 in Brazil; 1.65:1 in Guatemala; 1.29:1 in El Salvador; and 1.1:1 in Honduras. The only 2 countries that show greater popularity for capitalism are Panama, where the ratio of people describing themselves as socialist as opposed to capitalist is 0.87:1, and Mexico, where it is 0.81:1. It must be noted that both Panama and Mexico are dictatorships (with demonstration, but fake, elections) in which just being socialist is enough to get you arrested, or worse, as are Honduras and Columbia, so the support for socialism would probably be even greater there since people are afraid of speaking out. That all means that overall, a Latin American is 2.38 times as likely to consider themselves a socialist as opposed to a capitalist, despite the heavy repression of socialist in some countries and the history of it in others. The history of capitalist imperialism in Latin America provides ample enough reason why the Latin Americans feel like this. For information on the history of capitalist imperialism in Latin America see Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by Eduardo Galeano, Jungle Capitalists: A Story of Globalisation, Greed and Revolution by Peter Chapman, Year 501: The Conquest Continues by Noam Chomsky and Against Empire by Michael Parenti.
Capitalism has always been fought against by workers.

This conclusion is strongly supported by the fact that throughout history the working class has fought and struggled against capitalism (see Another World Is Possible: Globalization And Anti-Capitalism by David McNally, The New Latin American Left: Utopia Reborn by Patrick Barrett et al. and Direct Action: An Ethnography by David Graeber for recent examples, and see The Making of the English Working Class by E. P. Thompson, Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker, Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America by Louis Adamic, Dynamite: A Century Of Class Violence In America 1830-1930 by Chris Gray, and here for some historical examples - for the most comprehensive attempt to document the history of this see The Third Revolution. Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 and volume 4 by Murray Bookchin.) Throughout the entire existence of capitalism there has always been huge working class struggle against it, including labour action, revolts, insurrections and revolutions, among other methods.
Socialism has control, unlike capitalism

Socialist economies are very well planned and has control over all the industries, thus providing a guiding hand in building and contstructing its economy. A government wants its country to succeed, however a corporation only wants itself to succeed, even if its country is going to be doomed. The government doesn't care for money. It doesn't care for greed. It only cares for its country's status and for the country's own good. So, which would you choose? A greedy corporation or a government that only cares for the country's good? The government will be choosen of course, and that's what socialism means.
Socialism favors political greed over economic greed.

Socialism fosters the power of central planning and of the bureaucrat. Greed, subsequently, become manifest in the form of accumulating and exercising political power. This is worse than economic greed, because economic greed benefits others by adding value and employment to an economy, whereas political greed simply drags on the resources of society - often in the form of corruption, or over-expansive govt programs - without adding any value in return.
Capitalism divides and diffuses the power to oppress.

Socialism places both the control of wealth and the control of coercive force in the same hands, the state. A truly capitalistic state places wealth and its means of production in private hands which do not have the authority to use coercive force, while placing the authority and means use of coercive force exclusively in the hands of the state which does not have the authority to directly involve itself in economic enterprises. The private sector can then oppose state tyranny by financing opposition while the state may oppose private sector inequity with force backed law and the threat of confiscation of property.
Capitalism exists under constraints of democratic govt.

Capitalism isn't a monolithic system - capitalism can have elements of control in it. After all, taxation is a capitalist creation and almost all capitalists accept a role for state regulation to prevent market rigging and to help those in absolute poverty. More broadly speaking, capitalism exists within the constraints of a democratic system, in which the people decide collectively - through their government - to place certain constraints, laws, and regulations on capitalism. Capitalism is ultimately subservient to the democratic system and the collective (and hopefully compassionate) will of the citizenry.
Socialism removes the incentive to excel.

This is a driving force essential for the development of human society. Some people are clearly gifted more than others, from the very moment of birth. As unfair as it may seem (or even as unfair as it is), the only sensible thing one can do about it is to help the more gifted people to excel (while, of course, building upon the not so extraordinary, yet valuable work of others), and learn something new from them. By promoting a classless society, Socialism inevitably hinders the individual development and excellence, forging people into one uniform gray mass. Capitalism, at the very least, doesn't principally prevent an individual from excelling.
Capitalism is characterized by monopolies, not competition.

As everyone knows, monopolies are often formed under capitalist systems. Corporations were first chartered with the aim of gaining a monopoly over whatever area the monarchs chartered them in. So the need to monopolize is built into the basic logic of capitalism. The giant conglomerates that dominate world trade are proof of this. On the other hand, no monopolies exist in genuine socialism so there is no transfer of wealth to the centre or the pushing out of small, local groups - two important characteristics of monopolies.
Capitalism often subverts human rights for profits.

These rights that are subverted include the right to life, the right to live adequately, the right to earn a fair wage, the right to liberty etc. In fact, looking through the UN declaration of human rights it is hard to find a single right that isn't either constantly subverted or subverted in poor countries in order to achieve prosperity for rich countries, under capitalism. For some big examples of human rights that have been subverted for profit see the argument page on how capitalism fosters imperialism and for some reasons why see the sections on inequality, individual desires, market prices, and charity.
Capitalism subverts genuine political freedom.

Capitalism can tolerate democratic forms but not democratic substance. The reason for this is that capitalism requires that a small group of elites (the capitalist class) rule society with the collusion of a larger group of elites (the coordinator class), but if there was genuine popular democracy the people would not allow these elites to maintain their privilege. This is why no capitalist society has ever passed beyond polyarchy (see Democracy and its Critics and Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition by Robert Dahl for definitions. In brief, a ployarchy is a society ruled by a group of elites where the public gets to decide on certain intervals which elites have more or less power and which elites get to rule but where the public has not effective participation). The economics of capitalism provide the elites also with an excellent tool for the subversion if genuine democracy (see extended argument page). See Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti for the best account of how capitalism subverts genuine democracy in practice (with the example of America - the freest polyarchy) and see the first 4 chapters of Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel for a more economic analysis.
Capitalism subverts cooperation.

For a society to work (let alone work well) the people in the society need to cooperate together. Competition can only be good if there are sufficient levels of cooperation. In fact, in many cases, a society based on cooperation can achieve far more, in much fairer ways, than a society based on cooperation. For the case made for a society based on cooperation see Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution and The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, For All the People: Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by John Curl, Bakunin on Anarchism by Sam Dolgoff, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker, Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel, Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert and here. But capitalism prevents meaningful cooperation (a brief explanation is given in the argument on Capitalism subverts community, solidarity, productivity. For the effects that capitalist competition has on society see the argument on In capitalism, profit is made through exploitation (in the inequalities section), the extended argument on capitalism fosters imperialism, exploitation and suffering (in the history section) and the argument that capitalism has a systemic bias against helping others (in the charity section) - all give links for further reading.
More people get a chance to be productive in socialism.

Socialism gives about 4 times as many people the chance to harness their individual desires since they are no longer held back by poverty and class restraints (see the section on inequality, particularly the argument that Inequalities in capitalism stifle individual opportunity as well as the section on class). In capitalism about 80% of the population (the working class) are blocked from a chance to express their creativity and desires through empowering and creative work and are instead disempowered through rote work and through the hardships of living in poor conditions in a unequal society. But in socialism these people are now empowered to have a chance to express their desires and have creative and empowering tasks as part of their job. Socialism also presents the opportunity for the rote, disempowering jobs to be shared out (via a balanced job complex - see Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert) so that some people are no longer disempowered by being stuck with all the rote tasks.
Capitalism fosters, does not prevent, charity.

There are lot of rich people in capitalist society who provide grants for charity funds, student fellowships etc. After all, anybody in a capitalistic society can take some of his own money or goods today, out of his/her free will, and go and give them to other (poorer) people, if he or she feels it's the right thing to do. Capitalism doesn't prevent that; nor does it prevent you from keeping your earned goods/money if you want to. Some examples of rich people who donated to charity are Bill Gates, Oprah, and others. On the other hand, socialism actively and rather aggressively restricts the amount of riches one can have. So, out of the two, capitalism clearly offers more choice.
Capitalism impairs the right to food/life.

According to the UN "The Right To Food: Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2002/25” 36 million people starve to death every year despite the fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed everyone and according to the Food And Agricultural Organization Of The United Nations' 2008 report the world could produce twice as much food. That means that because capitalism has such an unfair system of distribution and of rich countries stealing resources from poor countries, the figures for deaths from starvation that could easily be prevented is the equivalent of 6 Nazi Holocausts every year! The reasons capitalism causes this much starvation can be found in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World by Mike Davis and Making Poverty: A History by Thomas Lines, among others, and for the root causes in capitalism of the exploitation that leads to hunger see the extended argument for Capitalism has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering. In brief, since the people and communities in the peripheries ("the third world") of the capitalist world-system are so exploited (this exploitation is one of the main features of capitalism) and are paid so little for what they produce they cannot afford to buy food. As a result of this food is allocated unevenly, favouring the core ("first world") of the capitalist system, where people have profited from the exploitation and can afford to pay for the food and thus make a profit for the food sellers. This means that the people in the peripheries do not have access to food and they cannot afford to buy it, so they starve. This is not protection of human rights in the slightest.
Socialism does not prevent individual success.

The only thing that socialism blocks is for individuals to earn more, or exploit other people, by virtue of being lucky enough to be born with more talent. Since in a truly socialist society everyone would have access to the job of their choice (including everyone having to do some menial tasks as well - this is called balanced job complexes) individuals actually have more chance to succeed with the talents they are born with. They just cannot use this success to push others back. "Yes" seems to assume that capitalism promotes individuals chances to succeed with the talents they are born with. But what about all the people with great talents that are never discovered because they have been born in poor circumstances, have been too poor to go to decent scool, or have been disempowered by having to work really long, difficult, rote hours, employing no creativity and just following orders, that drain all their energy and enthusiasm? Is that not blocking individuals from excelling with the talents they are born with?.
There is less charity in a socialist society.

Every resource considered by the majority to be either necessary or highly desirable is supplied through government. Government acquires these resources via taxation. Taxation does not require consent. Therefore, the resources used and provided to members of a society are not obtained through voluntary giving, which is the definition of charity. Since the majority in a socialist society believes that everyone has access to all necessary and highly desirable resources, then they have little motivation to sacrifice their personal resources to benefit another member of that society. They believe that it is not their responsibility to help others, rather, responsibility exists within government.
Socialism is ideal for protecting human rights.

The argument that socialism cannot protect human rights since it seeks the good of the people is ridiculous. Surely, human rights is one of the most important aspects of the good of the people. Any truly socialist society would protect, and has protected, far more human rights than capitalism has in the best circumstances. And since major decisions would be made by everyone, not corporations or states, then they would obviously seek to promote their human rights. Socialism also protects from the tyranny of the majority (see the decision-making structure section for an overview of participatory planning which is an excellent method for protecting society from the tyranny of the majority).