azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism is outwardly consistent as su

Though I agree that capitalism is not without its disadvantages, (what is?) I am all for it! A note to all…these disadvantages could be turned into advantages…it all depends on who’s looking at it.In my mind the advantages far outweigh the so-called disadvantages. Human beings are born with the knowledge that in order to survive one must work right? Only those born with the proverbial silver spoon are able to make it to the top easily and in a short time.People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something. Capitalism is outwardly consistent as survival requires originality and elasticity to stay abreast with the dynamic changes in supply and demand. (My Economics teacher should be proud…)Capitalism also encourages large populations which determine a certain degree of diversity…being multi-racial I know!!
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"People need incentives at home, work, wherever…people need to believe in something better in order to be a part of something."Socialism promises mutual prosperity and equality; that seems to be a more popular thing to work for than the unlikely chance of becoming individually rich. There's also a facet of humanity which capitalists tend to ignore, instead of being selfish and greedy most human beings lean towards cooperation and altruism. Every single day we cooperate with those around us without any sort of money or goods exchange. Parents care for their children without the children paying the parents, friends give to friends, people fight and die for their countrymen, their families, and their beliefs.Religion, also, has been a prime motivator in human history. Way before Capitalism's system of rewards and punishments people acted according to their religious convictions or their tribal affiliations. Cooperation is why we aren't just killing our neighbors to take their money and goods for ourselves (especially when we have the power to do so), cooperation is why families stick together and aid one another, cooperation is why we have a military that protects us with their lives, cooperation is why businesses work, actually. Ask anyone working for any company what is most important in getting the job done and they'll tell you "cooperation, team-work". Our scientific discoveries are more and more a collaboration of scientists and researchers from around the world. They work together, share information, share resources, they go to the far reaches of the globe, dangerous areas, and for what? Crappy pay? A few bucks? No, they do it because of their inherent, biological altruism, their beliefs, their understanding that what they are doing benefits them and those around them. Something should be said for selfishness, that is certainly a motivator; but more often than not what motivates people (especially in a civilized society) is a cooperative ethic.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Ive been to socialist countries and I prefer capitalism.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Socialist country? Would you care to enlighten me on where this place is? Go read a book.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism by far is better. I have been reading other arguments and I agree that Socialism sounds great and looks good on paper but it is unrealistic. Karl Marx said that Socialism is the transition to Communism. We all know how that story ends.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

History has shone that every government that has attempted using Socialism has FAILED. Share the wealth is a load of crap. Why should I give the money that I work hard to earn to a bum with 12 kids that is living completely on wellfare that has never worked a day in his life. Mr.Obama, tell what is fair in that.-Conserned Conservative
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitlism Pro

I am as patriotic as the next guy. However, I am going to set aside all the "Huzzah America".Fact of the matter is, socialism sounds better. It sounds fair and it sound utopian.However, it does not work. Human nature is not perfect or utopian.Socialism does not factor in the dark side of human nature, such as greed. Capitilism does.In a Capatilist society, the citizens can be lead by their own wordly desires and pursue their wants. In a Socialist society, the normal citizens can not. However, the country's leaders; the Mao Zedongs, the Stalins and the Castros can.Capitilist country's leaders do the same. They follow the dollar to whatever destination it may lead them. However, they are bound by democratic and capitilist restraints.Socialist society enable the people by promoting corruption.If a socialist society could be run devinely, then perhaps it could work. But it won't...after all we are all human.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: They're both imperfect

I agree. Ish. I live in America; I practice capitalism. But, theoretically, socialism is better. In practice, socialism has its pros and its cons. But so does capitalism.There are both sides to every issue. For example:Some people say that capitalism is better, because the people who actually work don't have to support the lazy bums on street corners, or those who don't want to work. In addition, capitalism encourages people to work because by working they will get rich. The rebuttal to that argument: Some of those "lazy bums," cannot, in fact, work due to mental retardation or physical disability. And the rich people in capitalist societies aren't always the ones who work hard. Oftentimes, they are the ones who inherited Daddy's money, or the ones who know how to corrupt the system, or the ones who were in the right place at the right time.Both systems have their faults.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Fellows! fellows!Ok, here's the thing: We all love to put labels on everything because it helps us to refer to it easily by using that label, but sometimes it doesn't help at all! 1 - Ideas such as Socialism and Capitalism are very hard to simply label and they cover many different ideas and so they've been broken down into many different labels and forms.2 - These 2 labels cover both economy as well as political structures.In the Socialism camp, there are different forms of it and sometimes they oppose each other even on the most basic of principles. Currently there's a Socialist Market Economy in China where the state only controls certain crucial elements of the economy and the rest is free enterprise..In the Capitalism camp, there's also no consensus on its definition. There are lots of different types of Capitalism although there are some features about it that most people can agree on.Now, unless we're arguing PURE Capitalism vs PURE Socialism (actually, I don't think the pure forms exist anywhere in practice), we should actually look at the stuff in between.Let's remove the labels for a bit and consider these 2 economical political theories as simply ways on how to best operate a country where everyone are happy and everything develop and grow to their best. So, at the present time, we have what people have been labelling as Regulated Capitalism in most democratic countries and some forms of Socialist Market Economy in the dictatorial communist countries. These 2 things are almost the same (as everyone are striving to run a country where people are happy and are well provided for) except for one crucial element: The political systems. Here's why I would not support a Socialist country: The socialism structure seems to require a dictatorial political system. Dictatorial one party systems will never give humans the freedoms we all naturally yearn for and I don't care how well they think they can run the economy: it's useless to be prosperous when you don't have freedom It's like living in a 5 star prison. Simple.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

First of all, capitalism and socialism are not forms of government. They relate to how economies are organized, and what is privatized (untaxed) and what is socialized (taxed, treated as common treasure).Actually, my position would be a third way, between socialism as most of us think of it and the sort of capitalism we in the US are used to. I'd like to refer you to an article which makes the case better than I can. It is online at wealthandwant dot com (among other places) and is called "Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism."Briefly, I think things which nature (or, if you will, God) provides, and things which are created by the community together rightly belong to the community. This would include non-renewable natural resources, particularly those in short supply, and it includes the value of urban land, which can be awesomely valuable. Individuals and organizations and corporations can't create these things, and so ought not to be able to privatize their economic value. Those who require them ought to compensate the rest of us for what we take.But once we've compensated our fellows for what we've "enclosed" or privatized (via an annual payment of land rent, or royalties, or a lease payment on a particularly slice of electromagnetic spectrum), we ought to be able to privatize that which we create using it. I'd pay rent to the commons equal to the annual value of the land I wanted as mine, be it a postage stamp lot in the city, or a grand spread in the middle of nowhere, or on the value of, say, 880AM within a 200 mile radius of NYC. As long as I didn't harm my neighbors, I'd have rights to those bits of the commons, and if I made a success of that radio frequency, it would be mine to keep. Mind you, I couldn't turn around and sell the rights to 880AM to someone else at a higher price (except for the duration of my lease on that frequency slice), but I could sell my transmitter and studios and the possibilities of my office and on-air staff staying. On my urban postage stamp, I could place a cottage or a skyscraper, but my rent to the commons would be what the market says that land is worth. If I could afford that rent while keeping just a cottage for myself on the land, fine. If it made sense to build a skyscraper on it, I'd be entitled to keep the portion of the rent which related to the building itself and the services I provided my tenants, while passing along the portion attributed to the locational value.And 100 years ago, this was known as The Single Tax. The powers that be didn't like it much, but it is still a fine idea. (In fact, the board game Monopoly is based on The Landlord's Game, which was developed to teach the ideas behind The Single Tax.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

When looking at the Capitalism vs Socialism economically, statistics have proven that a country is far more productive and wealthy under capitalism. This doesn't always mean that everyone is happy, and may vote socialism until they aren't happy with that, and bring back capitalism. Personally i think that if you're looking for equal rights, you will actually find it under capitalism as well as a safe society (i.e. good military and police force).
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Ideally I would like a government that is mostly capitalistic, but where essential services are socialized (government run). I think services such as road-building, schools, police, hospitals, parks should be run by the government so that everybody has access to these things regardless of ability to pay. The reason that some things should be government run, but not others is simple. For things where the service is significantly more important than any boost to the economy it could provide, we need to ensure that these will run no matter what. For all other services we need competition to ensure good quality, and reasonable prices.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

In order for liberal ideas to work, someone has to be forced to fund their programs. Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism has lead to an unprecedented generation of wealth throughout the world and has been largely responsible for a significant reduction in poverty throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Socialism has had the opposite effect.The wealthy benefit the poor as long as they do not inefficiently utilize resources.People who support socialism usually do not grasp the idea that the wealthy actually generate the wealth that pulls the poor out of poverty. Any action that a wealthy person engages in benefits the poor.If a wealthy individual...Puts money in a mattress: leads to deflation, which reduces the cost of products that the poor purchase.Invest money: expands businesses, which creates jobs that the poor can take and also generates wealth that can be donated to the poor.Buy stuff: stimulates demand which leads to the creation of jobs that the poor can take.Start a business: creates jobs and also creates products that the poor need.Socialism, on the other hand, destroys the mechanism of wealth generation that pulled society out of the dark ages and inefficiently allocates resources.When fully informed, the only people who would support socialism are government bureaucrats because they're the only ones who benefit under socialism. Everyone else, especially the poor, suffer.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Boosts IncompetenceAs socialism provides the poorest with higher levels of income via social security payments, it deters them from working hard, if at all. It also creates a negative feeling in the minds of hard working fellows, as they gain no extra incentives for working hard. Adding to their woes, lazy people get paid equally as they do. This negatively impacts productivity and thus economic growth.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism spurs competition, whereas socialism does not because of the government intervention. In addition, the necessary spending in a socialist system is unsustainable. Look at Europe for an example. F
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism creates an environment in which innovation and entrepreneurship allow any individual with the will to work to become enriched. This spurs competition, innovation, and quality. These are eliminated by socialist policies that penalize success and do not even improve the conditions of those who were not in higher income brackets to begin with. Despite what detractors say about capitalist systems, crime and corruption can easily be isolated and eliminated. However, because of the centralization of power inherent to socialist systems, these become parts of the institution because there are no separate entities to eliminate such vice.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism. Socialism is an invention of the devil to enslave men.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: They're both bad

Capitalism is good. Capitalism also has some REALLY BAD traits. Actually, a lot of them. Now, in theory, socialism is probably the greatest idea since tools. Now the problem is, people are fat, lazy, greedy and corrupted. This is bad. But its so much worse in a socialist society, because socialism relies on people being the opposite. Thus, capitalism wins because its less negatively affected by our nature (in fact it could positively affect capitalism, cause everyone's greed will cause them to attempt to do things better and cheaper).
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The great thing about capitalism is that it has room for error. It's the whole process of boom and bust. It has many ways for people to make money- stocks, bonds, treasury notes, a robust economy with a great diversity in jobs.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism promotes economic growth by providing an open competition in the market. It provides individuals with far better opportunities of raising their income and thus achieving economic growth
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism results in a decentralized economic system. This is considered as one of the greatest advantages of capitalism. In a decentralized economy, individuals are open to more number of options in business. They are exposed to competition and have to face different challenges and find solutions to them to stay in competition. It is in a capitalist economy that hard work is rewarded. Entrepreneurs who pitch well and are able to better their business are the undoubted winners.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism gives rise to an economy where the consumers regulate the market. Many consider this as one of the greatest strengths of a capitalist economy. A competitive market provided by capitalism facilitates the manufacture of a wide variety of products and the formation of a wide range of services. Consumers are happier in a capitalist economy. It encourages people to work towards financial freedom.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Cons of Socialism - The difficulty with socialism is that people don't necessarily like to share. In addition, we have difficultly relating to socialism in American because the capitalistic system is all about the individual and singular life. There is no compassion built into capitalism that allows for poor people to be cared for on a regular basis. Throughout history, countries have had a hard time implementing socialism because enforcement is very problematic. Getting people to agree that everyone should share is a nice idea, but how do you get "buy-in"? Unfortunately, some countries have tried to implement socialism through unilateral control, which tends to stifle people's willingness to participate.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Unreal TheoryTrue socialism is an imaginative theory and cannot be implemented as it is. Today, socialism is not adopted in the same way, as it was advocated by Karl Marx and other socialists. The original form of socialism is neither preached nor practiced.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Improper ImplementationIn socialist countries today, there are a handful of bureaucrats who control and use the power of the state. They redistribute and regulate wealth and decide on taxation for the people. Thus, in reality, people do not have control over wealth. This limits people’s political freedom and reverses the overall concept.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Negatively Influences Growth Of EconomySocialism is actually economically inefficient, as it puts off entrepreneurs from generating wealth, because they usually have to pay higher taxes.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Poverty & Social Evils Are Not EliminatedSocialism might redistribute some of the wealth of the richest members of the society to the poor, but this move does not eliminate poverty as a whole. The overall growth of economy suffers considerably. If there is not enough wealth, then distribution can be hampered.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

The rich can give money to the poor. Without froceing them.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

No Real Increase In Standard Of LivingInstead of improving the living standards for all, socialism actually lowers the income of the richest to reduce the divide and make them fall close to the income levels of the poorest.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Government control is never good. Thats why we broke off from england.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism. In a free market, we see much more freedom to start up businesses and increase wealth.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Capitalist societies produce a concentration of wealth that proves detrimental to the general population, the economy as a whole, and even the capitalists, the businessmen themselves.Lassaize-faire Capitalism allows a small number of individuals and businesses to posess, to horde, a large proportion of the wealth and land in a nation; depriving the majority of control over their labor, their lives, and essentially leaving them under the direct control of their employers. Capitalism, as well, tends to operate irrationally when it comes to human welfare. Happiness, health, art, education, knowledge, science, freedom, family, the environment, religion; these are unquantifiable, non-monetary benefits that tend to be thrown out of the equation due to the difficulty in extracting financial gain out of them. You can, of course, exploit all of these needs; it is extremely unlikely that the system would try to fulfill them.Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want. If it is profitable for an industry to work its people 16 hours a day or more, as well as their children, for enough money to pay for one meal a day then so be it, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to use a poisonous substance to preserve milk, that is what would be used. Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy. Well, that is, until an economic depression occurs. Socialist economies of the past, even the worst ones, and socialist economies currently have shown remarkable feats. In the Soviet Union we saw an agrarian kingdom turn into an industrial superpower in decades (in the west it took hundreds of years). Even though the Soviet Union wasn't as productive as the United States its people held a standard of living close to it. In Cuba, while its Capitalist neighbors suffer through civil wars, famines, crime, corruption, poverty; the red island's standard of living is rather close the United States; the health of its people is actually higher and its literacy rate is enviable. Europe, while slightly less productive than the United States, maintains the highest standard of living in the world. Its people are healthier, smarter, freer, enjoy paid vacations, benefits; they simply, on average, have it better than the average American. The trade-off is clear; do you want an extremely productive society with a handful of extremely wealthy people while everyone else remains uncared for or a productive society of a more equal distribution of wealth where the average person enjoys an extremely high standard of living? It's the difference between a society where a man could, possibly, maybe, become rich but will most likely be relatively poor. Or a society where noone can become rich but everyone is well-off.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"Basically, the world around us would be shaped only by what is most profitable, or what a small group of people with economic power want..."Without regulation, without direction, and without an overriding value that places human needs and human happiness above profit and business we would see a complete deterioration of our people and our society while at the same time a wonderfully prosperous economy."What's this "Would" business? You're demonstrably right; This perfectly describes what's going on in the US right now. Though you very well might have meant that... Just thought I'd say it outright in my usual heavy-handed style :-P But yes, I agree with you on 100% of your argument.