azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Some people will always have various benefits that others won't (ie looks, strength, intelligence).That is almost exactly what meritocrats would call merit. The point of a meritocratic system is to pick out the important advantages, like intelligence, and apply people with those advantages, or merits, into important positions where they would have more power and influence.placing everyone at the very same starting line is impossible.Because I don't believe that strength or intelligence are immoral advantages to be abolished, I don't see any reason why an equal starting line would be unfeasible. I do believe however, unlike meritocrats, that these advantages are morally irrelevant.People are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Because people haven't chosen their parents or genetic advantages, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for lacking a rich father, a full set of hair or an X amount of IQ points. Therefore, a just society ought to do best by it's weakest members, even at an expense to those who're better off.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

People are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Because people haven't chosen their parents or genetic advantages, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for lacking a rich father, a full set of hair or an X amount of IQ points. Therefore, a just society ought to do best by it's weakest members, even at an expense to those who're better off.I agree that people are responsible for their decisions and nothing more. Therefore, we can't hold anyone morally accountable for being born rich or having more opportunities. If doing best by the weakest is at the expense of the better off, this isn't justice. The better off have not necessarily made immoral decisions. Who would put the expense at their feet and for what crime? Just because I have what someone else does not, does not mean it should be taken from me, nor am I morally bound to share.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Just because I have what someone else does not, does not mean it should be taken from me, nor am I morally bound to share.If you're capable of putting yourself in another person's shoes, and realize that sharing something is of benefit, then you are in fact morally bound to do so. If you instead choose to act in an unproductive way, you are fully morally accountable for that decision.The better off have not necessarily made immoral decisions.I only hold the rich morally accountable for deciding not to share what resources may be used more productively elsewhere, or even deciding not to find out how their resources could best benefit everyone in society.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Sharing must be put into context, it is not a virtue in and of itself nor is it necessarily a benefit to all. If someone is morally bound to share, are other morally correct in making them share?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Sharing must be put into context, it is not a virtue in and of itself nor is it necessarily a benefit to all. I completely agree with that. There are cases in which it is harmful and I do mean to communicate that.If someone is morally bound to share, are other morally correct in making them share?I will answer that with another question: If it is morally wrong to steal, are others morally correct in making them not steal?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Since my answer to your question would be an affirmative, I will conclude that your answer to my question is an affirmative as well. Which is a big problem with your position as far as I am concerned. Stopping the wrong is not the same as compelling the good.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Stopping the wrong is not the same as compelling the good.Then you must define that distinction and argue for it's significance.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Stopping the wrong is how rights are protected. Your right to life is protected when we stop murder. Compelling the good (what you say is good) is how slaves are made. You don't have the right to make me share what is mine. If you make me share, you are infringing on my property rights which are protected when someone stops you from stealing. Which is what forced sharing is.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Stopping the wrong is how rights are protected.If you refer to rights, you run into the problem of what rights do people exactly have. Therefore "stopping the wrong" is how rights are created, not how they're protected. If you make me share, you are infringing on my property rights which are protected when someone stops you from stealing.If rights exist without society or law, isn't the same entity that protects your property stealing from you through forced taxation?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

If you refer to rights, you run into the problem of what rights do people exactly have. Therefore "stopping the wrong" is how rights are created, not how they're protected.I take the classical liberal approach on rights. They are a moral concept meaning you are morally wrong to infringe on my moral rights. Your moral right to something cannot require the action of another, because that infringes their rights. Therefore, you have the right to life, liberty, and your property but not a house a meal or healthcare. The first 3 require only the stopping of someone infringing on them, the latter 3 requires someone to produce those things which is why they are not rights. If meals are a right then cooks can be made slaves.If rights exist without society or law, isn't the same entity that protects your property stealing from you through forced taxation?Taxation is a difficult subject. I am certain that a system of non-coercive taxation is possible but never thought about. When the only role of government was the protection of the individual rights of its citizenry, taxation had a semblance of morality. The broadened scope of government has removed the morality out of taxation.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The problem with capitalism is not the concept, but people in general. Capitalism is basically legalized theft, because the amount of markup, ways to get out of getting paid, loopholes in the law that keeps one from making honest deals, etc.Dominion Homes here in Ohio built and sold houses to people they knew couldn't afford to make the payments and had several other tricks up their sleeve as well. One thing that they did was sell homes for zero down and then overinflated the value of the house that they financed, the homes weren't worth what the loan was. Normal home loans in this state are maximum 80% of the estimated value. Dominion made loans for 150% (example) of the value of the home. They had zero down for like a year then the payments were extremely high compared to the actual value of the house. http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/02/20/daily11.html?page=all
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Please explain how Capitalism is legalized theft.Value is a tricky thing. If someone is willing to pay a given price, that's the value. Bubbles over-inflate prices, not companies.The conditions that encouraged the kind of predatory lending you describe were not created by capitalism. There is no room in capitalism for a "risk free" loan, which is what Fanny and Freddie promised with tax dollars. No one would make loans to high risk borrowers if they had to cover the cost of default themselves. This would mean that a lot of people would not be able to buy a home (in actuality they couldn't anyway).On a side note, Capitalism has no room for "too big to fail" either.But again, how is unforced mutual trade at an agreed to price (capitalism) equivalent to legalized theft?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Really? I got down for that? No one even answered the question! Sore losers.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Everything .
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I find it interesting that no problem presented is followed by any solution. The statement that "everything" is wrong with capitalism isn't even helpful to the debate. With is the solution offered to the "everything" that is wrong with capitalism?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The innate issue with capitalism is that otherwise peaceful and seemingly productive activity may have a negative impact on third parties: other people, the environment and animals. Because there's no simple and thorough way of dealing with this, economic activity must be regulated, because it can do more harm than good.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I may need an example. Negative effects on third parties can be mitigated through laws that protect rights, including the right of the third party to sue for damage. Extra regulation is not necessarily required. Again, an example would be helpful because I know that there are situations where it is required.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Negative effects on third parties can be mitigated through laws that protect rights, including the right of the third party to sue for damage.There are third parties which are not capable of going through a legal process. Mentally incapacitated people, children, "potential persons" and animals fit into such a category. A law protecting these beings from harm and exploitation is, in my books, regulation, because it involves making estimations and judgements for otherwise legally passive entities.Defining terms like externality, regulation or rights is a troubling direction for this debate, but if you do choose to go down that path, please provide concrete examples and distinctions.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

There are third parties which are not capable of going through a legal process. Mentally incapacitated people, children, "potential persons" and animals fit into such a category. There are third parties that can go through legal channels and are still being exploited. The people of Bhopal whose land has been polluted for near 40 years from one of DOWs chemical factories have tried legal channels to settle the dispute to no avail.In 2004 there was a hoax involving the incident above where someone posing as a DOW employee stated on the BBC that they would liquidate the plant in Bhopal and use the money from that to clean up the site. The world applauded DOW's actions however DOW's stocks dropped immediately. The market was punishing DOW for doing what everyone agreed was right. Lucky for DOW shareholders the company rectified the situation and exposed the hoax, there was and still is no intention of cleaning up the plant.More tests in 2009 were conducted showing a 3 mile radius around DOW's plant being affected by their leaking chemicals. DOW still remains silent.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I expect our understanding of "rights" differs from one another. But other than that, what's wrong with defining our terms?The third parties you mentioned, other than animals, would have to have a competent care taker to survive. This caretaker would correctly be a legal advocate. Even so, laws that protect individual rights would protect the rights of these people as well. When certain laws fail to accomplish their purpose, it does not follow that more laws will solve the problem. I think there are far too many regulations, though I haven't said that all regulations should be dropped, some of them are important (standardized contract law and contract language for example).
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The third parties you mentioned, other than animals, would have to have a competent care taker to survive.Is that your way of saying children and the mentally incapacitated can be left for dead, if they don't enjoy the company of such a caretaker?Even so, laws that protect individual rights would protect the rights of these people as well.I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but rest assured I have done the best I can. If you rape a mentally challenged kid, you get to enjoy a minimal standard of life behind bars (or possibly a painless death and a proper funeral) as provided by the state. However, if you commit the crime of being a mentally challenged kid, the state grants you absolutely nothing.In the end, this is all a form of bureaucracy. In order to enjoy a stay behind bars with free meals, you have to commit a crime. Why couldn't you just go in and out as you please? In order to enjoy a guaranteed meal for the day, you must stay behind bars, where you're unproductive. Why not just grant everyone a minimal standard of living?When certain laws fail to accomplish their purpose, it does not follow that more laws will solve the problem. Judaism stated out with with just half of Deuteronomy, but eventually grew into the Jewish bible and Talmud. Isn't it arrogant to assume that a capitalist state will avoid growing into a complex system of law?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Is that your way of saying children and the mentally incapacitated can be left for dead, if they don't enjoy the company of such a caretaker?It's my way of saying that if they don't have one, they will die. That same caretaker or legal guardian is also their legal advocate.I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but rest assured I have done the best I canIf someone destroys your property, they are subject to a lawsuit. If they destroy it with chemical pollution they are still subject to lawsuit. If we say it is illegal to rape people, but people keep doing it, a new law that restates it in a different way won't solve the problem. I don't know how Deuteronomy did things, but a more complex world must still adhere to fundemental principles, the principles that drove the growth and complexity. New principles need not be adopted. Reduntancy is always reduncy regardless of complexity.Why not just grant everyone a minimal standard of living?We should find ways to keep people from committing crimes, not provide the world with whatever criminals get. There is no such thing as a free lunch, all lunches must be made by someone. To say "Why don't we grant" is simply saying why "don't we make someone produce this. "
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

There is no better alternative. When peops find one, then I'm sure we'll all be much better off without capitalism.  But really, any political system is going to harbour corruption.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

That's an interesting phrasing for a tautology. It's like saying. Capitalism is the best that there is. Once there is something better, things will be better.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I don't see how there is a dispute here?Note the usage of the word 'is,' which is the present tense of the infinitive 'to be.'So your simplification "Capitalism is the best that there is. Once there is something better, things will be better" is consistent even if you don't agree with it; 'Capitalism is the best that there [currently] is, with the possibility of something better being discovered.'It's not even a tautology. It's a statement with nothing to back it up, but it's also one that you haven't disputed in the slightest; you really should have picked clarify if you weren't offering an actual dispute.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Yeah, I wasn't really trying to dispute it. The underlying tautology is just that when things are better, things will be better. I guess I might have picked dispute because he was on the opposing side to capitalism while stating that it's the best there is.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Not much, but crony capitalism is the problem. Conservatives think capitalism means help the rich
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

It is most unfortunate that "crony capitalism" is equated with capitalism. What do you think capitalism means?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

It is most unfortunate that "crony capitalism" is equated with capitalism. What do you think capitalism means?I am curious to know what you think "capitalism" is?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Wealth Inequality and Unequal Opportunities, both of which are addressed under a Socialist system.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

After marriage, reproduction must come. It is the physical manifestation of love.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

If they have the income and are willing, why not?
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

I do not care as long as both the father and the mother are involved in the child's life. Two dads and two moms? Better than 0 dads and zero moms. I may or may not agree with it, but I support the right to choose.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

But what do you think about the difference between 1 mum and 1 dad vs. 2 mums?
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

congratulation parent... now you have babycongratulation baby... now you have father and father
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Read the description, its only possible for women. At least for now.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

I wish them happiness but I wouldn't do it. Delivering a baby through my penis doesn't sound pleasant ;)
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Nope, in terms of men, they will just take your sperm cells. Copy the DNA and let your baby develop in a test tube.After that, I believe that you will have to find an appropriate womb. Thats what I learned in the lesson of cloning
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up ;)
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

My child will grow up with two moms, no matter if we can procreate or if we have to adopt. Screw anyone who tells us any difference!I wish anyone else happiness.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

A man and a man or a woman and a woman, everyone has a right to happiness. Homosexuals are still human, and they have just as many rights as the straight man. I'd always rather see two good mothers together with a child than a man and a woman that treat their child like garbage.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

These articles all said (except for the last one wich was an opinion paper) the procedure is dangerous and causes serious illness and birth defects in the infants. It would be dangerous and irresponsible to use this method to procreate it should be banned.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

It is an early invention.Same hazards was raised on the early days of X-rays, Chemotherapy and Blood Transfusion. I believe that this topic will be the headline of the news 10 years later. (if the Nuclear Apocalypse hasn't arrive yet, that is)
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

There's a difference though isn't there. The inventions you've mentioned were trialed on patients with full-consent of the risks. What you're talking about is to make the babies the the subject of the experiment. If it goes wrong you get disabled children. And for what? For the chance that the baby looks like both mummies? Lesbians already have sperm donation or adoption, leave it at that.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

This is the age of computer. The results does not have to rely on human tests anymore. All they need is a lab rat, some testing, and a simulation program to know the percentage of risks for the operation.For now, the risk is too high and not recommended. But come on, since when has mankind learned to be contented with what they have?The progress of science can only be halted if it raised issues against morality (e.g Cloning and Human Experiments). I dont think that homosexual reproduction has something against the Constitution and the Bible itself.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

At some point there will have to be human tests and when that points comes they'll have to be questions about if the aim they're persuing is worth the risks. However I concede that its not at that point yet as there seems to be more to do before starting on human trials.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

I doubt it.The Church keeps a good sight on whatever action the scientific community does. They do this because they are paranoid for a reason too stupid to type. The scientific world hates being criticized over morality issues so they will rather wait for desperate couples who will demand the experiment be done on them. That way, whatever the results are, is no longer their responsibility
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

It doesn't matter that its early what matters is that it goes against our biology. When you change one cell into another you mess up its genetic code. These kids are going to be born with crippling even deadly defects and diseases.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Then explain to me how sex changes work without changing cells?
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

It doesn't you just go from being a guy to being a guy with no penis and visa versa. When a person "changes gender" there body dose not function the way someone who was born that genders body would for instance a man who becomes a women cannot get pregnant, lactate, give birth (duh), or "get wet". No matter how much esterigen they take. And I did not say you couldn't change cells I said that when you do you cause complications.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Even appearance changes require editing cells, just not necessarily by humans.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Can you say the same thing to Organ Transplant and using Artificial Limbs?It goes against our biology and messes up the genetic code that God gave us
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

Not quite the same thing. It one your taking an organ from person a and putting it into person b the body changes but the function stays the same. What we are dealing with here is taking a cell and turning it into a totally different cell with a totally different function.
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: I wish them happiness

Stem Cell does the same thing. And no, the article never changed the function of the egg cell. What it did is to extract the DNA and pass it on to the receiving donor. Its an assisted reproduction, not mutation
Debate: What is your say about Homosexual Reproduction?
Side: Thats immoral!

Stem cells are meant to do that. And no the article said scientists have found a way to create artificial sperm ushering a donors DNA. It even said how they turned a bone marrow cell into a sperm cell or perhaps that was one of the other articles. But one of them said that.