BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Capitalism subverts community, solidarity, productivity.

In a capitalist environment the ultimate end is the acquisition of profit through individual success, competition, and low wages. If I pay you cheap, abysmal wages I make more money and am judged as more successful under capitalism than if I pay you a fair price. In other words, in a capitalist system, the systemic biases encourages people to make as much money as they can at the expense of others. Socialism, by contrast, increases solidarity mainly by tying people to the product of their work and to those that receive that product. This is how solidarity works. It means that peoples fates are tied up together. And, by increasing solidarity and a sense of community, socialism increases happiness. This is because humans, as pack animals, need meaningful contact with others in order to be truly happy. Douglas Rushkoff discusses these concepts.Life Inc.. And, by increasing a sense of purpose, solidarity, and happinesses, socialism increases productivity.
Capitalism has a systemic bias against helping others.

Since third parties are externalised from prices in capitalism, it is economically inefficient to consider the effects that something has on others. And since this exclusion of third parties leads to the overpricing of positive externalities and the underpricing of negative externalities, it is cheaper to exploit someone than it is to be fair towards them (see the section on market prices for more detail). This is compounded by the selfish pursuit of profit that capitalism encourages (see the section on individual desires for more detail) . These combine together to mean that it is economically inefficient in capitalism to consider others and so charity and solidarity is punished, whereas anti-social behaviour is rewarded with profits. A perfect example of this is fair-trade: since workers are treated equitably in fair trade products, they become more expensive (the overpricing of positive social costs) and are thus rare and often unaffordable except for the well-off.
Capitalism gives corporations tyrannical powers

There are pure unaccountable tyranny, as well as the state. For the tyrannical structure of corporations see The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Balkan, The Corporation (documentary), Life Inc. by Douglas Rushkoff or "Corporate Law and Structures: Exposing the roots of the problem" by Corporate Watch (follow the link of the title here. For the tyrannical acts of corporations see one of the NGOs dealing with corporate crime (such as Corporate Watch and many others) or many of the books and links given at the end of this debate. Corporations are less democratically accountable than almost every state and about the same as the worst ones. "Private Power" is really a euphemism for corporate power. Corporations are directly linked to the state and their power is extremely centralised (both internally and externally through the IMF, World Bank, WTO and similar structures). So putting more power into the hands of corporations is hardly diffusing the power to oppress.
Capitalism is very dictatorial.

Firstly, capitalism is extremely dictatorial in the economic sphere. This was discussed in the argument that capitalism gives corporations tyrannical powers. But capitalism also fosters dictatorships in the political sphere. Ignoring the polyarchic capitalist societies (and the fact that capitalism cannot go beyond polyarchy and to democracy - as discussed in the argument that capitalism subverts genuine political freedom) the majority of capitalist societies have been dictatorships - such as Indonesia under Suharto, Burma under Than Shwe, the many juntas in Latin America, The Congo under Mobutu, and many many others. In fact, dictatorships are necessary in the peripheries of the capitalist world-system. This is because the people in the peripheral societies are unwilling to be exploited for the profit of the capitalists and so a dictatorship is needed to keep them in line (for explanation of the division of capitalism into the core, the peripheries and the semi-peripheries see the extended argument page on capitalism fosters imperialism, exploitation and suffering. For information on how capitalism needs dictatorships in the peripheries see Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (The Political Economy of Human Rights - Volume I) by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman and The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda by Edward Herman and see here for a brief overview.
Socialism poorly adapts to change.

Well, life is unpredictable. Socialism promises predictability - or what else is there to imagine under this "right to live"? But there is nobody who can tell what tomorrow will bring, nobody and nothing that can guarantee well being. The basic premise of socialism is therefore as realizable as perpetuum mobile. Sometimes, the crops may be bad, natural disasters can strike, new technologies can emerge so your knowledge or skill is no longer valuable. Capitalists usually quietly and peacefully (though, of course, not necessarily lightheartedly and easily) accept these changes or losses as a thing that life brings, and learns how to adapt to the new circumstances. Socialists, on the other hand, usually begin a fruitless and absurd search of whom to blame for (not predicting) these abrupt changes, with the "outcome" of this "search" usually being "the capitalist behaviour" of some individual or a group of people, against whom the aggressive anger of the "common people" is subsequently senselessly turned.
All prosperous nations are capitalist nations

The economies of India and China are growing rapidly because of capitalism. More people are being employed and the general quality of life is increasing. This is because businesses are investing in those countries, and it is the free market that circulates capital better than the government. Immigrants have flocked to the U.S., particularly during the Industrial Revolution, because of capitalism. Poor immigrants do not aspire to move to socialist countries. Even the European countries that some consider to be socialist allow for capitalism. Socialism cannot help bring a nation out of poverty because it requires everyone to be taxed, but if the people are living in poverty then they have no money for the government to take.
Socialism run by central bureaucracy, not "the people"

Michael Telzrow. "Socialism's broken promises." New American. December 25th, 2008: "In truth, the working classes had much to lose under socialism, and for later generations the shackles of communism would weigh heavy; for in practice, a central person or group had to control the redistribution of the wealth, and under communism power was concentrated for the benefit of the few at the controls — at the expense of the masses, no matter the harm and the suffering visited upon the masses."
Socialism puts planning into the hands of the people.

In collective socialism workers' and consumers' councils interact through the participatory planning process to determine what is produced and consumed. In this system of planning, each workers' or consumers' council (in their federations) make a proposal for what they want to produce or consume and other workers' and consumers' councils can approve or reject the proposal. If the plan of an individual council is rejected then it is responsible for editing and resubmitting it. This process means that what is produced is exactly what the consumers demand and what the workers are happy to produce. It means that each person takes part in a decision to the degree they are affected, solidarity is encouraged, democracy and self-determination is promoted, and a plan comes together that everyone is happy with. It means that social costs can be respected and plans can be made without domination. It also means that the plans will be fair since they have been made by everyone involved to the degree they are affected. See Participatory Planning for the best overview of this process and for more detail see Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel and Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert.
Capitalism fosters equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

One of the main principles of capitalism is to foster an equal-opportunity meritocracy, in which the most talent (no matter their background and parents) can rise up and achieve anything, mainly because they are the ones that can produce the greatest products and provide the best services to their fellow man. This form of equality - equal opportunity - is superior to an equal outcome mentality that attempts to keep everyone at the same level of wealth and success. While an equal outcome approach may benefit those that are less talented, it holds back and disincentivizes those that are more talented, while giving no motivation to the most talented to rise and provide the best goods and services and to help a society progress forward.
Business don't take from poor; they add value and jobs.

It is false to think of capitalism as a zero-sum game in which the only way for the rich to become rich is to take from the poor. This misreads the process by which a business and individual become successful and wealthy, which entails an individual and group within a company creating value in the marketplace that other citizen-consumers like and so reward by buying that service/product. Creating value in this way takes nothing from anybody else, it actually creates value out of nothing and adds it into an economy. Part of the result is that the poor or unemployed may now be hired by the business, and eventually, if they have merit, climb up the ranks of the business and become successful and wealthy themselves.
Capitalism grossly misdirects money to military

According to the 1998 UN Human Development Report, the additional cost of achieving and maintaining universal access to basic education for all, basic health care, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food and clean water and safe sewers (in other words, ending poverty) would amount to roughly $40 billion a year. The current military budget for the entire world is $1.1 trillion a year. This is 27.5 times the amount that would be need to ensure universal access to all of those things. This is mismanagement, driven in large part by the profit-interests of the "military industrial complex". In other words, 1/27 of the amount of money that we spend on killing each other and working out how to kill each other could end poverty (the single biggest killer in existence) but that money doesn't go to ending poverty because the military is profitable but ending poverty isn't! This misdirection of money is also a result of the need in capitalism for imperial conquests to expand profit and power. This misdirection of money to the military and the arms trade fuels war and conflict and a grievous level.
Market prices do not reflect social cost

Market prices do not include any costs to third parties, including anything from individual people all the way up to the ecosystem as a whole (these are called externalities). These costs could be negative, such as pollution, or positive, such as pollution cleanup. Negative externalities are overproduced (on a scale of what is socially acceptable) and positive externalities are underproduced - since accurate prices would make actions with negative externalities more expensive and actions with positive externalities cheaper, meaning more positive externalities would be produced and less negative externalities (it would about approximate the social cost). That would be accurate pricing. But social costs are excluded from pricing in the capitalist marketplace (they affect a third party) so it is economically rational to produce more negative social and less positive social cost cost than is socially rational.
Income and rewards in capitalism are unequal

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. The 3 richest people in the world own more financial assets than the poorest 10% of the world’s population combined. Do the people in the richest 10% of the population work 425 times harder than the people in the poorest half? Or do the people in the richest 1% of the population work 2,000 times harder than the people in the poorest half? Or do the 3 richest people in the world work 200,000,000 times harder than the people in the poorest 10% of the population? Certainly not. So, capitalism produces a very unequal society that does not correlate appropriately to work-ethic and merit, and which depends in large part on the exploitation of the poor by the rich. See the section on history (imperialism particularly) and some later arguments in this section, as well as some parts of the market prices section, for a brief explanation of the causes of this gross inequality.
Focusing on large corporation distracts from fundamentals of capitalism.

Capitalism is not about enriching large and powerful corporations. It was originally and remains largely about small groups of individuals in communities working together to supply collective needs. Critics who talk about big corporations in capitalism typically ignore the fact that the vast majority of businesses are small, community-based ones, and ones in which eye-popping profits are not made. Most businesses are just community stores and organizations that pay reasonable wages and that communities would sorely miss.
Capitalism necessitates imperial wars of conquest.

See the section (and the extended) argument of how capitalism fosters imperialism, subjugation and suffering for information and explanation on this. But for now, suffice it to say that imperial wars are necessary in capitalism to bring a flow of cheap resources from the peripheries to the centre and to create cheap markets for goods produced by the top corporations. This is why capitalism has never existed without wars, particularly colonial wars and the civil wars that result from a society wrecked by colonialism. See here for an explanation of how capitalism causes militarism and war.
Payment schemes under markets are unfair.

When people are paid more in the market it doesn't mean that people believe in what they are producing more. It means that they own more property, have more bargaining power or are better at making other people pay the bills (often by exploiting them). So the best way to make money under capitalism is not to produce something good that we all love, but to already be rich or to be a thug. The more money you have the more money you will get in the future, do to payments for property, increased bargaining power due to having lots of money. And the less money you have, the less you will get in the future, for the inverse of the same reasons. Rewarding thugs and people who are lucky enough to already have alot of money (that they usually got by extracting value from other people's labour) hardly seems like a fair method of remuneration. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite. 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. For more problems of capitalist markets see here.
Inequalities in capitalism stifle individual opportunity.

Since there are such vast inequalities within capitalism some individuals are prevented from a chance of success. For example, there is no way a Sudanese man who earns less than a dollar a day and a poor and hungry family to feed can climb the social ladder and achieve success. And the chips are stacked mightily against his kids as well. This goes on all across the spectrum of poverty that is so prevalent in capitalism. But in socialism, since people are equal, and since some people are not forced into poverty so others can get rich, this is no longer a problem.
Kosovo is too underdeveloped for independence

Serbs do not enjoy freedom of movement, there is little decentralized power-sharing with local communities, political and legal institutions have yet to mature, political infighting is rampant, crime and corruption are high, patronage systems are deeply embedded in the clannish structure of Albanian society, poverty and economic woes persist, and all of this undermines Kosovo's efforts to attract foreign capital. These are not good conditions for a move to independence and viability.
Support for Kosovo independence will reduce Muslim resentment

It should be noted that Kosovo's Albanian population is chiefly Muslim, as opposed to the Christian orthodoxy of Serbia. In the Muslim world, the oppression of the Albanian Muslims by the Christian Serbs is viewed with resentment, ostensibly fitting neatly with the story line of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The continued denial of Kosovo independence is viewed in the Muslim world as just another example of Western and/or Christian oppression, inflaming Muslim resentment and lending fuel to Muslim extremist causes in the region and around the world.
Kosovo independence could spark conflict with Serbia around Metrovica

Metrovica is a northern Kosovo city existing close to the border with Serbia. 40% of Kosovo Serbs live in and north of this city. A number of concerns surround this area in the event of a Kosovo declaration of independence. First, it is possible that the ethnic Serb policemen there will drop their Kosovo uniforms and enter Serbia, which could be taken as a major red flag on the part of Kosovo nationalists and reason for taking defensive military measures. In addition, it is possible that Serbia will, out of concern for its ethnic population in the north of Kosovo around Metrovica, invade or take measures to protect these groups. These Serbian concerns have led to some proposals to partition the area north of Metrovica away from an independent Kosovo.[1] All of these possibilities are real concerns for the outbreak of violence in the event of a declaration of Kosovo independence.
America opposes ethnically-based nation-states

Daniel Byman, Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation, 2000 - "Under the UN resolution that ended the NATO war, Kosovo remains a part of Serbia. This status accords with U.S. preferences, as Washington has long opposed partition in principle, particularly if it leads to ethnically based states. Embracing the American ideal - that all peoples can live together regardless of racial, ethnic or sectarian divisions - Washington has consistently opposed the deliberate creation of ethnically homogenous states."
An independent Kosovo would be financially costly to its neighbors

M. Bozinovichand, "Kosovo Independence: A Costly Supposition", Servianna.com 4/10/04 - "Kosovo might be of similar fate [to Albania - see below] simply because the proponents of Albanian nationalism want to grant it independence yet it is unclear whether they are also willing to pay an exorbitant tribute to the Kosovo Alabanian government whose taxable base of less then 2 million people earning average of $30 per month cannot yield not 1% of required costs to run that country. Case in point is the $2 billion cost of American presence on only one-fifth of the province. Multiplied by 5 sectors that Kosovo is split into, the cost approaches $10 billion annually and even that presence is insufficient to provide complete security to the area. Factoring in the taxable base and potential revenues that Kosovo government may acquire from various kinds of legitimate enterprise, the independent Kosovo entity may cost foreign sponsors at least $5 billion annually to sustain it in addition to value-depleting activities exported out of there such as drugs, prostitution and weapons that may never be eradicated."
Kosovo is capable of governing itself independently

- Agim Ceku, Prime Minister of Kosovo, "Succeeding in Kosovo", Washington Post, 12/12/06 - "In the past several years, Kosovo has undergone a remarkable transformation. Most of the responsibilities of governing have been transferred from the U.N. Mission to the Provisional Government. Kosovo has a sound microeconomic foundation, as well as a tax system with few exemptions and low marginal rates. Our labor laws are among the most flexible in Europe and the government has normalized private property laws. While the judiciary and security sector still need deeper, fundamental reforms, Kosovo has by and large developed functional and effective institutions."
Kosovo is an historic part of Serbia that should not grow independent

Yevgeny Primakov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, "Three Arguments Against Kosovo Independence", Serbian News Network, 2/19/07 - "Kosovo and Metohia are considered to be the Serbs' native and ancestral land, a land where their civilization, culture and identity evolved. The Serbian Constitution, recently adopted in a nationwide referendum, calls Kosovo an inalienable part of Serbia."
An independent Kosovo is the least bad option now

Pat Cox, former President of the European Parliament, argued on 2/14/05 that, "Kosovo has nowhere left to go other than independence. Returning to a state relationship with Serbia is anathema to the 90 per cent of the population that is ethnic Albanian, and forcing such a solution would reignite war. Any protectorate option would be seen by Kosovo Albanians as merely the buying of time at their expense. And there are no viable candidate organisations to take on the role: the UN's political capital in Kosovo is exhausted after its five years of inadequate, stop-gap administration, and the EU is not geared or willing to take over Kosovo's governance."
The US would be justified in assassinating Hugo Chavez

"Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president". Media Matters for America. August 22nd, 2005 - "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."