azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

on a large scale kings and lords traded. Economic systems are layered, and intermingled. "People need capital in order for capitalism to function" -Would it be accurate to say that most people do not own capital? hunter gathers probably traded some of what they found and made with other tribes, and I imagine if someone found something valuable he could trade it with in his own group. yea, free trade is good; to a point.people don't like capitalism because of the power relations its made up of and leads to. A limited capitalism can promote economic growth, but if left completely free to do as it pleases large powerful institutions develop, cartels happen, price fixing,bad working/living conditions happen etc which harms overall economic growth.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

We're not disagreeing here on most of what you're saying.Yes kings and lords traded, and in this sense what happened could be considered capitalistic, however on the scale of people within the kingdoms it was anything but. When you said Feudalism you were obviously referring to people within a kingdom and therefore what I said was valid.Where do most people not own capital? If we are talking about countries, at least most countries in the West have people that own capital. I'm not sure who you're referring to that doesn't.You seem to be mistaking capitalism for anarchy. The problems you mention are issues that get in the way of free trade, and so you need government to stop them from occurring. These aren't issues with capitalism these are people trading unfairly.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Capitalism is just tradeAnd urine is just water. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

I like the part of your argument where you explain your metaphor and then show me why capitalism isn't trade...
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Capitalism isn't just trade.Whereas urine isn't just water.Water and trade are both parts of piss and capitalism... but they aren't the whole thing. There's a lot more to it.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Except for the fact that capitalism is just trade. I work to make or earn something, and then I trade it for something else. In our current society we use money to make these trades easier, but in the end it's all just trade.You still haven't explained your metaphor: piss is more than water because there are other parts to it...what else is involved in capitalism other than trade?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

capitalism other than trade?What else is involved in communism other than trade? A farmer sells an egg and gets money for it.You can't understand capitalism further than 'trade'???Why am I fucking arguing with you then?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

I understand capitalism just fine thank you, but I'm pretty sure your knowledge of economics is zero. In a communist system a farmer would not sell his eggs. Instead everything he makes would essentially be taxed by the government and distributed as they saw fit.The reason you are arguing with me is because you can't see that I am right, and the reason you are mad is because you can't think of a reason why I'm wrong.So allow me to ask you again: what else is there other than trade?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Instead everything he makes would essentially be taxed by the government and distributed as they saw fit.Difference capitalism and communism is that in capitalism you decide how you trade goods whereas in communism the government decides how to trade goods. It's still trade.So in communism what else is there other than trade?Trade is the basis of all economies - not something copyrighted by capitalism. lmao.You used the USSR as an example of where communism "worked" and yet you also claim you would refer to live here. A little contradictory, don't you think?Lol R U DIZZY BLUD??!?!Firstly I never claimed where I prefered to live. Secondly there would be 100000000 reasons why I would or wouldn't live in the USSR - not just because their communism works. Thirdly I don't live in America I live in UK. Fourthly you need to give me some of that shit your smoking. You've 'un-read' something TWICE IN A ROW. Let's see if you do it a third time.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

You should really just get out of all debates involving economics.What you described with communism is not trade. For trade to exist people have to be able to own private property. In other words, to trade you have to have something to trade. Now you can try and warp the definition of trade to fit into communism but then it loses its meaning. Communism essentially has the government redistribute the wealth to everyone. In other words, whether you produce one million dollars worth of goods and services in a year, or you produce 20 dollars worth, you end up with the same thing. The result of this is that people stop working as hard, since they receive the same goods regardless of their effort. This causes to GDP of a country to fall farther and farther unless the government can find another way to motivate people. In the USSR, this was by sending people who didn't work off to concentration camps. The practical problem with this, other than the fact that it is an awful thing to do to people, is that this will only motivate people to work hard enough to not get in trouble. Once again, this means the economy underperforms its maximum output.In communism, what you make...what you earn, isn't yours. Other people get to decide what to do with it. This type of system is hilariously inefficient. The Soviets tried using a computer to determine what people needed and how much of it they needed, but this failed miserably and is the reason why they now use capitalism in Russia. You are in complete denial of reality here. Any centrally controlled economy is destined to fail.You still have yet to describe what there is to capitalism other than trade. As I have stated before, that is because you have no idea. So please stop arguing economics... you are just embarrassing yourself.Also, England's economy is based on capitalism as well, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. My point still stands, is there another country which you would rather live in that doesn't use capitalism as the basis of its economy? The USSR's communism failed, so it isn't around anymore, so it's not like you could live there. Maybe you should live in North Korea? They have a centrally planned economy. Or perhaps Cuba? Seriously, I'm actually curious where other than the west you would want to live.Finally, please for you many god's sake, learn something about economics. It's not even fun arguing with you just annoying. You know so little, yet presume to know so much. You claim capitalism to be evil and yet fail to explain why. You also argue that there is more to capitalism than free trade, and yet you can't tell me any of its other attributes. Just stop it already.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Owwwwhhhh you didn't even counter-argue. You just bullshited.You also argue that there is more to capitalism than free tradeLiar.The result of this is that people stop working as hard, since they receive the same goods regardless of their effort. This causes to GDP of a country to fall farther and farther unless the government can find another way to motivate people.is that this will only motivate people to work hard enough to not get in trouble. Once again, this means the economy underperforms its maximum output.So far all I hear is capitalist propoganda. Wait there's moreis the reason why they now use capitalism in Russia.Liarcapitalism other than trade.In the word of capitalists - 'free enteprise'England's economy is based on capitalism as wellEngland is technically socialist.My point still stands, is there another country which you would rather live in that doesn't use capitalism as the basis of its economy?Shiiiittt in terms of economic planning? I don't think I'd mind N. Korea or Cuba. It's all the other things that I have an issue with i.e. fascism. Your question is flawed.Economy is basically trade. Differences in economies is how the trades take place.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Well I take it back. You need to learn both history and economics.The USSR's version of communism failed and they currently have a system based on capitalism. If you think I'm lying prove it and don't just state "Liar".You call what I said "capitalist propaganda" but don't actually say why it's false. Once again I would advice you to take some classes about economics. To put it another way: it's capitalism with a socialist safety net.England is socialist? When you go to work (if you work) do you earn money? Do you take that money and buy goods and services from stores owned and operated by private citizens? If you chose to start your own business, could you do so and expect to keep a part of your earnings to do with as you wish (within the law of course)? I do understand that there are social programs in place in England to help those who do not have jobs, and also guaranteed medical services, however this is hardly socialism. The overall system, and what pays for these social programs is capitalism.Economy is basically trade. Differences in economies is how the trades take place.You are clearly using a different and more vague use of the term trade then I intended. This is known as the fallacy of equivocation. I clearly explained what I meant by trade and yet you continually act as though I meant something completely different. Your own definition of trade is ridiculous as the actions of a mugger could be considered trade under it. Let me spell it out for you one last time:Capitalism = voluntary trade = I own/made something, and trade it for something that someone else owns/made.You still haven't explained why capitalism is evil though. I understand why however; I wouldn't try and answer a question I didn't have an answer to either.I don't think I'd mind N. Korea or Cuba. It's all the other things that I have an issue with i.e. fascism. Your question is flawed.Don't you see how this contradicts your whole premise? You claim that democracy will "defeat" capitalism (whatever that means) and yet the only nations with these centrally planned economies are authoritarian in nature and the farthest thing from capitalism.Also, if you want to be poor, I guess communism is for you, since that's about all it brings: poverty.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

i cant explain how capitalism is evil but it seems that alot of corporations are very vicious is busting up unions, but they also are very nasty when it comes to competition. alot of corporations such as dole go into latin american countries to destroy their competition so they can take over the industry. goldman sachs for example forced the government to bail it out. slave trade was also capitalism. do you see the evil in that? how about opium. that is essentially how britain got rich, by poisoning other people. how bout selling crap to people that they dont need? what about ponzi schemes? bernie madoff ring a bell? capitalist america bombed out iraq, korea, afganistan, and viet nam, but i didnt see a communist country bomb out the u.s.. if i plant some apples and sell them. that isnt evil, but if i go into your orchards to poison your crops, so that i can sell more apples, then that is evil. unfortunately, capitalists dont know where to draw the line and often resort to these kinds of tactics. check out the plaza accord. it is something the americans forced the japanese to sign. the americans though the japanese were profiting too much because they thought that only americans should prosper in this world. it crashed the japanese economy.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

In a democracy, once the non-producers out-number the producers the non-producers will vote themselves profits. Profits should go to the producers of a society through hard work, not voting one selves what has to be taken from a producer.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

In a democracy, once the non-producers out-number the producers the non-producers will vote themselves profits. Profits should go to the producers of a society through hard work, not voting one selves what has to be taken from a producer.This statement forgets the fact that producers "work" through their base of employees (or non-producers).
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

What is your point? This is what hierarchy capitalism constitutes.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

What is your point? This is what hierarchy capitalism constitutes.The point is that it follows that capitalism doesn't reward on merit, like the person argued, but on an ability to amass and organise labour.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

What system does reward on merit?---------------------------------
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

What system does reward on merit?A meritocracy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

True, meritocracy still constitutes a system of a aristocratic or oligarchical government
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Business owners never worked? The greatness of capitalism allows those who work and work hard to one day own a business and provide jobs to others (make non-producers producers) and you look at that as a bad thing. You must have a problem once they get to that point where they hire others and make them work?Take away these people and you have a third world country and I don't see many people immigrating there.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

You missed the point. In capitalism you are rewarded for organising labour, not for working harder than non-producers.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Unions are rewarded for organizing workers and I would agree they are a problem.If it was as easy as organizing labor to become a corporation,community organizers would be rich. Running a company, which most start out as a one man show and grow has nothing to do with organing labor.Name one company that started just by organing labor. Name one CEO that wasn't a non-producer until he/she was hired as a worker then moved up to management.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Unions are rewarded for organizing workers and I would agree they are a problem.You dodged the issue. In your reasoning the producers are the business owners, the management. How does a successful company run? By organising labour, workers, employees.The unions aren't really pertinent to this discussion because they don't exist on their own.If it was as easy as organizing labor to become a corporation,community organizers would be rich. Running a company, which most start out as a one man show and grow has nothing to do with organing labor.Name one company that started just by organing labor. Name one CEO that wasn't a non-producer until he/she was hired as a worker then moved up to management.Unimportant to the discussion because the transitory period between the business owner being the worker, and becoming the management is overshadowed by the fact that once the business has a staff, it becomes that way for its life and this is the predominant setup of companies.To use an analogy you're focusing on the seedling instead of the plant it becomes.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

If you mean organing labor as in creating jobs, is that not producing. If a business produces jobs this increases tax revenue and spending thus creating more jobs and so on.Wealth for workers is produced and spread to other producers.Producers of wealth are the most important.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

If you mean organing labor as in creating jobs, is that not producing. If a business produces jobs this increases tax revenue and spending thus creating more jobs and so on.Wealth for workers is produced and spread to other producers.I thought you were talking about producers of product.Producers of wealth are the most important.If you expand the definition as you did, then the workers are collectively better producers than the management, yet aren't compensated for it proportionately. Further, it would be the case that the majority of the population are producers.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

While I believe in theory socialism is really great, I have to side with capitalism. Capitalist societies seem to have very powerful economies. The U.S. has only been a country for 232 years, and has become a superpower. One huge reason is because of the great freedom, but capitalism has definitely helped. The GDP of the U.S. far exceeds that of any other individual country.People like to say that capitalism doesn't work well because of greed. I'll agree that is one of the negative points of capitalism, but it's also one of the positive ones as well. In capitalistic societies, companies compete in a free market. They are of course greedy, but because of greed they fight to gain more customers. Competition almost always benefits the consumer because they are reaping the benefits of having amazing products or services.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: i want a say in my life

all i have to say is screw crime rates obiesity ect. Do you really want the government to tell you what to work, how long you can work, how much money you make and tax you till you're broke? In china it used to be a law that you couldn't have more than one child, and you couldn't take you possesions out of the contry. Honestly, china wouldn't let you leave.p.s. the u.s. is totally obiese because we have the CHOICE to eat the crappy food from McDonalds, not because we have a capitalist government.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Wow. The one baby act is actually an beneficial idea especially in the sort of environmental/resource crisis we are in. They are actually doing something to help future generations where we look at it as a choice. We are the beholders of a choice that could end humanity. Lastly if anyone in this world had principles (which capitalism does NOT support) then all of this would seem ridiculous to the eyes of free thinkers (also not promoted by capitalism). If you looked at it from an objective standpoint i would believe you would be saying much different things.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Please learn how to spell and use proper grammar. China, despite officially being a "communist" nation, is anything but. You are confusing authoritarian governments with communist states.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I'm not as well versed in the ideas of capitalism as i would like but capitalism seems to be just about profit and thus is run mainly on greed. In a real capitalist society there wouldn't be any regulations on businesses so some important factors such as using clean technology might never be utilized since at first it is expensive, and innovation is usually driven by profit not the good it will do to society. The consumer wins when there are multiple companies producing the same or similar services and products, but in a true capitalist nation there would be no laws against monopolies. Once a monopoly is reached the consumer loses. I agree that capitalism or at least the semi-capitalism the United states practices is very good at making money, but at what cost? A socialist nation may not make as much money as a capitalist nation but most of the people in it will live better lives. Once you reach a certain wealth threshold additional wealth means little, unless you feel you must show off you wealth and well...
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

If a monopoly is reached theoretically there are only two things the monopoly will do: raise prices and/or stop improving quality. The consumer will stop buying the product if these things happen so it is in the best interesnt of the monopoly financially to keep the consumer happy by keeping prices low and quality high.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Not if it is a necessary product or services. If a water&powercompany wasn't regulated, imagine what would happen if they became a monopoly, they could charge whatever they wanted and people would have to pay.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Eventually people wouldn't be able to afford it. So the monopoly would have to decrease prices, in order to make up for the lost revenue. Eventually the invisible hand wins.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

But they wouldn't lose any revenue, that's the point! If it's a necessary service people would have to buy it. If they jack the price of electricity, what are you gonna do, live in the dark the rest of your life? Of course not, you're just gonna pay the high price, and your gonna complain about it, like people always do.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Water and Power companies are already a monopoly. however, they are Privately Regulated Monopolies, which means that the government has a tight control over them.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Exactly my point. Imagine the same companies if they were not strictly regulated. I shudder to think...
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

No, that wasn't your point. How could it be your point when I said it.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

If you say something that inadvertently supports my argument.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I didn't say anything. I typed.----------------------------------
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Well that is true, but if the capitalist society is laissez faire then a monopoly would be impossible. But if a business began supplying at unfair prices, people can stop buying as this would create a demand for the product, and this would be a perfect opportunity to grow.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"The U.S. has only been a country for 232 years, and has become a superpower. One huge reason is because of the great freedom, but capitalism has definitely helped. The GDP of the U.S. far exceeds that of any other individual country."These facts are definitely true. However, you're attributing the cause to the wrong system. Do you remember that the U.S. (and the entire world) had a Great Depression in the 1930s? This was due to the capitalist society of the time. Unregulated banks, speculation, and greed were destroying the world economy, and no one knew about it until it was too late. Only when FDR started to begin regulating the economy did it start to improve (for example, he decreased the unemployment to only 2/3 of what it was during Hoover's presidency. Not a huge decrease, but imagine what he was up against). Of course, it was really WWII that brought the world out of the Depression, but FDR's policies put the world and America back on the right track. And that kind of government power in the economy was heretofore unknown. It was becoming more socialist.Recently there has been the global recession. Say what you will, but because we began to regulate more, our economy has begun to recover somewhat. The crazy amount of deregulation of the Bush Era is what helped a great deal to cause the recession.On another note, perhaps we need another war to spring us back into prosperity ;)
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Actually the cause of the Great Depression was too much regulation. The protectionist policies of all the world nearly halted all free trade. And there was a depression/recession in 1920-21 when the administration cut spending and taxes in half, and the unemployment rate plummeted. That's where the roaring twenties come from. FDR's policies kept the unemployment rate rather high for over a decade. His friend and major architect of the New Deal said, "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot." And Bush's tax cuts spurred the largest peacetime expansion of the US economy. Your argument is flawed.