azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

This is what you said:"lets say all of the people decided to ban the right to vote, decided to ban the right to free speech, do you still think it's okay because the majority of people decided it is? do you just live with it?"I was responding to that specifically. The issue isn't that I would just let it happen, there is nothing I could do in the case of unanimous or virtually unanimous decision. The only course of action would be to try and convince people that it is or was a bad idea and then do something.If a simple majority votes away voting rights for itself and the rest of a population we are still in rather simple territory: as I said before, if a democracy ends democracy then it is no longer anti-democratic to fight against that society or government. Equality is one of the most important values I hold; of course a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny and it should be fought. Even if a democracy in place; democracy is only right in so far as it is an equal democracy, a democracy in which everyone has the same rights. An oppressed minority has the following options: secede, passively fight for equal rights, or aggressively/violently fight for equal rights. "and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit."Ya know what; if you don't like the policies of this government you are free to move to another one. That kind of logic goes both ways. Noone is forcing you to stay in this country; if you don't like our policies you can leave. Is that right? No. What you are saying is just as silly.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

i don't mind the current policies, but the thing is, i never walked into this country... i was born here. wal-mart is something you can simply just walk into. there's no having to go into wal-mart at all, and as far as i know, no one was ever born inside a wal-mart.yes, this country can be better (could be less laws for me, or more equal for you), and i believe in fixing it. but that's because a government is something we have to live with. there are plenty of businesses within walking or even driving distance, so if one business isn't doing well, i can go to the other. as they lose money, they work to try and win me back. a country is a little different, we fight for what we believe in (mainly because it's a lot harder to just move from country to country).by what you said, you sound a lot like those extreme right "love it or leave it" type guys. funny, i always thought you were on the other side of the scale.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

To say that the health of europeans is due to a socialist society is pure fallacy. The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer qualiy. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs.Also to say a capitalist society would put poison to preserve milk is silly. Maybe they'd do that at first. But once the population starts dying they'd realize that it may not become profitable to be known as the milk producer who poisons their milk.I get what you're saying. Pure capitalists will sometimes cut corners to lower costs. But this is something you see more in a communist society like China, rather than anywere in the US. And if anything,the chinese society models socialism more so than capitalism.Oh - and Cuba having a standard of living 'close' to ours? What's your definition of 'close' a million miles away? Up until recently they weren't allowed to have cell phones or internet. They also aren't allowed to show any type of dissent without being tured in. Doesn't sound close to us at all.As far as Europe is concerned, I have no argument. I agree that Europe did alot of good things to help their citizens over the years. But now that entitlement spending is ballooning and their society is aging, you'll see changes to the way they are structured.While i don't agree with unrestricted capitalism, I do feel capitalism - such as the type we have here in the states - is a MUCH better way to spread out a limited number of goods and resources over an entire society.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Great facts on Cuba.But in the end your definition confuses what capitalism really is. The U.S. isn't purely capitalist. And europe isn't purely socialist. In fact, Europe is pretty damn capitalist (not as much as the U.S.).That's because capitalism is not a form of government. It's a type of economic system that can be used within any government (socialist or democratic).Capitalism is the way you make money. It's not how you govern.China, for example, has opened up to a much more capitalist, free-market structure. Thanks to that, th Chinese economy is flourishing. Yet, they are still communist. Europe, is now allowing many capitalist principles in the way their economy is stuctured as well.Let's not forget that had it not been for capitalism, industrialization may have never happened. That means we probably wouldn't even be arguing this because there'd be no computers and we'd have probably died from yet another plague.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

You're right, the U.S. isn't purely Capitalist and Europe isn't purely Socialist, I never said that. However, the comparison is this: The U.S. is far more Capitalistic than Europe (especially in certain countries). It just so happens that the more Socialist Europeans are more prosperous than the more Capitalist Americans. This indicates that Socialism certainly has a positive affect on a society. It doesn't prove that pure Socialism is the best; but time and again, example after example, the more Socialist the country the better off the people are (if put into a proper context). Anyways, the Chinese economy may be "flourishing" but the people of China are in a horrible condition. China is not Communist; it is somewhat Socialist. Just because a group calls themselves this or that does not make it so. China didn't need to introduce Capitalism to increase its standard of living (neither did Russia, as the standard of living still hasn't come back up to Soviet levels). It may make more billionaires and increase tax revenues but it doesn't make the people as a whole any better off. Industrialization didn't occur because of Capitalism; industrialization is what allowed a system like Capitalism to occur. There was industrial machinery in Feudal times; and Feudalism continued in Britain alongside industrial development. It wasn't until later that Capitalism was arrived at; that is; until Industrialization had developed into a great force.Capitalism could be said to have helped industrialization along. No Communist; not even Karl Marx, denies that Capitalism played a great role in technological growth, some rises in the standard of living, and brilliant inventions. However, Communism/Socialism can do the exact same thing in a fairer way, faster, while enriching the majority of the population. It also provides a far more stable economy; which Capitalism has never been able to give.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I don't think that its the capitalist system that has made the life of the average american a little harder. I believe its the way our government has created policies and also the types of policies they have decided to create (afghanistan, iraq, oil subsidies, etc...).You see, capitalism, when effectively integrated into a society, is far better at allocating scarce resources then would socialism. Ask any economist and they will completely agree. It's the reason why Europe is moving towards a more capitalist economy. In my opinion, the role of the government is to offer some protections to its citizens in the form of proper regulation. I don't believe the government should tax its citizens upwards of 50% just because its innefficient at spending its money.You see, i have no problems with socialism or socialist ideals. It's just that government can never do something as cheaply or efficiently as a private business. That doesn't mean that private business should just be left alone. It's obvious that people need protection and that's where the government steps in.The problem in the U.S. is that the government is behind the curve in protecting the individual simply because of how our political system is set up (on lobbyists). So for the U.S., the problem isnt the fact that it's capitalist, the problem is the government itself.You reform the way our government works and the people will have more prosperous lives. One thing is for sure, giving our corrupt, idiotic government more powers (by means of a socialist mandate) is a recipe for disaster.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The fact that you think Cuba is honest in how it reports statistics is sad commentary on your comprehension of communism.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Umm, sweetheart; those figures come from the CIA (you know, the Communist-Sympathizing United States government's spy agency which is headed by Fidel Castro himself). Cuba's healthcare achievements are independently verified; I am not trusting the government's own accounting alone. It's obvious that you didn't actually look at the links I gave. If you aren't going to actually take the time to read arguments and look at the facts do me, others, and yourself a favor and stay out of debates until you have the integrity to participate.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Have you ever been to cuba? How about any country that is opressed by a dictator? I've been to Korea and I know the pretty piture they paint for you. They want you to believe that everything on their side of the fence is better and that their people are being taken care of. Sure they have sky scrapers apartments, but they have no running water and no electricity. That means that they have to fetch water and cary the pails up hundreds of stairs. I don't look at water and electricity as luxeries I see them as a nessessity. How can our world have the technology that is has to create power for the entire world but yet deprive your own country. North Koreans are not able to talk to their families in South Korea. Kim Yong-IL knows that ignorance is bliss and that knowledge is power. The Berlin wall was not bulit to keep people out... besides by even suggesting that Socilaism/ Communism is economicly better suggests that you also agree with Genocide. Rethink your stance on life and how American's and Capitalist don't charish it. The next time your in a Commie country think about staying.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

What a lovely stream of meaningless propaganda. Thank you for your non-contribution to this debate, you may now exit out the way you crawled in.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"The health of that nation is directly correlated to the foods they eat and the way their countries infrastructure is structured. In the states, people generally walk less and eat food of poorer quality. that's because alot of people live out in the burbs."Eating habits certainly have an impact on health, but much of those eating habits are influenced by public programs on nutritional education and information through the healthcare system, the schools, and the media outlets. Here are some interesting statistics that might gum up your point of view:Top healthiest nations (in order, 2006)/Obesity rate rank  Hong Kong: n/a Japan: #28 Sweden: #21 Australia: #6 Israel: n/a Switzerland: #27 Canada: #11 Norway: #26New Zealand: #7Italy: #25UAE: n/aAustria: #24U.K.: #3France: #23Cuba: n/aSpain: #12Costa Rica: n/aBelgium: #19Sources:http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-unbk0609-06.html http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity As you can see, most of the nations in the list of the top healthiest countries in the world are also towards the top (or even in the top ten to twenty) of the world's most obese nations. The thing that all of them have the most in common is a universal healthcare system. (Some of them go about it in different ways, such as mandating government insurance, setting prices if private hospitals are the main source of healthcare, or forcing all hospitals to be non-profit.). 'll deal with your other arguments later, but at this time I think I've shown that your belief that diet is what has made these nations the healthiest on earth is pretty much bunk. (and, I would like to point out to you that even though the United States isn't in the top spot for healthiest nations, evil Cuba is.)
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

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.Let me ask you this, in a society where noone can become rich but everyone is well-off, what then becomes the source of motivation that will drive people, (scientists, entrepreneurs, philosophers) , to work hard, contribute to society, and strive to make the advancements that will push their society ahead of others. If I know that no matter what I will be "well-off" what reason do I have to get off the couch and build roads. While I must admit that the free enterprise certainly has its flaws, I believe that ultimately, capitalism promotes progress, while socialism promotes idolism.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"capitalism promotes progress"In judging this assertion, I think you contend that technical progress is better promoted by private enterprise than by a nationalized industry. If my judgement is accurate, then you are only recognizing the side of the goods and the capitalist, and not the side of the wage earner... which is what the rest of your argument fully recognizes. Thus, your argument contradicts itself.The incentive to work would not come from the desire to earn a wage, it would come from the impulse to participate in creative activity ( I will forego a lengthy explanation regarding how socialism can secure the latter principle, I feel a bit lethargic at the moment. Feel free to question my assertion when you care to dispute!). I could assert the axiom that a satisfied impulse (enacted responsibly) bears far more individual happiness and far less individual misery than any satisfied desire (enacted responsibly) ever has, but I only want to argue it if you disagree with me. By the way, it is not essential in Socialism that everyone earn the same wage, just that each earning be justified en reason. I would also like to note... the relevant justification for utilizing creative impulses and direct workers management as a means to produce goods is the fact that it stimulates far more growth and progress than if left in the hands of bored, subservient workers. If you wish to dispute, I will explain this point further.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Total Koolaid drinker and wrong on the facts to boot. The Soviet Union never had a living standard anywhere near the United States, and was never an agrarian kingdom. It was so inefficient that if you weren't murdered by Stalin, you died of starvation. Cuba became socialist after a civil war which was started by the murderous Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Now they are stuck in the fifites and jail more political dissidents than the US ever has. Some paradise. To say that anybody anywhere has it better than the average American is such total BS! You mean tell me that, that some poor person living in the slums of Paris would not rather trade his circumstances with a poor person here with their SUV, Flat screen cable TV, car, air conditioning and opportunity? Really? There has never been a country in the world that has lifted more of it's own people along with people in countries out of poverty as the United States. Socialism fails everywhere and every time it has been tried. Because try as they might, central planners just can't plan for the human condition. Some people just don't want to be the same as everybody else.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitlism Pro

I disagree. The leaders of those countries, how do they live?Not nearly as meager as you describe.Hence, if the leaders are living better than the common man?How is everything equal?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

None of this has anything to do with what I've said or what my arguments are. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I don't have time to respond to your whole argument which I think is a crock of shit, but please please stop calling Cuba socialist. Like all other 'socialist states' of the 20th Century were State-Capitalist. Ha, and you call yourself a commie. Please.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Okay, I see a lot of cut and paste on here to make an argument on both sides. I'm gonna just say it the way I see it. Capitalism originally would of worked if it wasn't for Greed. The CEO's and Share-holders had sold out their own American brother.Corporation CEO's and Shareholders control;- your salary- what you can wear and not wear- what your appearance should be- how long you can take lunch or even take a break- your vacation leave- if you deserve bonuses/incentives- your benefits - annual raises- credit rating- the type of car you can afford- the type of home you can qualify for- and basically control your fate to loose everything You’re a modern day slave. So why all the paranoia about Socialism? I think some people are mistaken the word Socialism with State Capitalism.Capitalism was working until GREED and CORRUPTION began to take over. I can't see it repairing itself unless there is government oversight or socialism to be introduced to spread the wealth.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Corporation's control none of these. In a free market,if you produce a large profit for your employer and he does something you do not like,you have the option of leaving and taking your marketability elsewhere.A worker controls his salary,benefits,raises, etc by how much he or she is needed by said company. Now,if you are easily replaced then you really are not worth that much.Personal accountability. I control my credit rating,which type of car I can afford,home I can afford,bonuses,incentives,raises,vacation time,appearance and all the rest you stated. If I can go elsewhere and make more I will,if I can't I accept what they offer. This is the system that rewards the producers.You want to control things,produce.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Copied from the Other Socialism vs Capitalism debate:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Socialism_vs_Capitalism#arg83929 Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government. In a Capitalist society, where regulation is preferably at a minimum if it exists at all, the rich prey upon the poor. We saw that in the Industrial Revolution, where immense corporations manipulated the poor to remain rich. Specifically in America, railroad companies in the late 19th century lobbied to prevent regulation so they could exact extraordinarily high prices from the farmers. Politicians were corrupted (because everyone has a price). Large corporations and factories prevented workers' rights by blocking the formation of unions, making them work 18 hours a day for extremely low wages. Lawyers used the 14th Amendment to claim corporations the same rights as a human being. Naturally, with this kind of power, basic human rights were lost to those who fell below the poverty lines. Even today, massive corporations demand so much from an individual that only with difficulty can one rise through society. Those who are rich tend to remain rich, with their children educated the best, and the poor remain poor (unless their children are brilliant).Socialism, on the other hand, addresses these issues. It gives a piece of every company, of every corporation, of every factory, to every individual. Contrary to popular belief, the government isn't necessarily given control of the means of production (that's communism). Therefore, Democracy is one of the fundamental attributes of a Socialist society. When the people make the decisions, the corporations aren't allowed to abuse a person's innate rights. People are given material items according their needs. People are paid according to their skill, the difficulty of the job, and the time that they dedicate to that job. It's what most people hope to have in their lives: freedom.Capitalism is based upon the negative attributes of mankind. Greed, betrayal, selfishness, and thrives upon strict class distinctions (i.e. rich and poor, with little to no middle class). In order to succeed, one MUST step on others, one MUST destroy others' economic futures, one MUST advance forward without looking back to consider what he or she has done. What kind of a society wishes to leave the good people in society writhing in the dust? What kind of society doesn't prevent bad people from gaining to much power? What kind of society cares so much about the present that they forget the future?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

When you're praising Socialism and condemning Capitalism, are you purely talking about the theories? Theoretically I'd love to live in a Socialist society. But if you're talking about reality, please tell me an example of a society where Socialism worked its miracles on its citizens.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

You have a good point. But again, Capitalism is also pretty great in theory with lots of social mobility. But when it comes to practice, it's impossible to have a pure Capitalist because of innate human greed. Hence the necessity of government regulation. So it's not really Capitalism anymore (or at least as defined by laissez-faire economics). It's pretty much the same with Socialism. But Socialism I believe benefits more in practice (since neither Capitalism or Socialism are ever instituted in full) than Capitalism. As for your other request:I can think of 1. China is one half and France is the other half. China because currently they are one of the highest producing countries in the world whereas the U.S. (the main advocate of Capitalism) produces very little. So it has a fantastic economy, but it really hasn't worked the "miracles" of Socialism. France is only a half because it's composed of two parties essentially, the Socialist one and the Capitalist one. Currently the powers-that-be in France are in the hands of the Capitalists. (interesting economic factoid about France: only 8.3% unemployment as of 2007. I don't know if there are any statistics as of 2009/10)Perhaps I should also count Netherlands because they, like France, are capable of being socialist at any given election because they have a pretty powerful socialist party(another employment factoid for the Netherlands: theirs is a little over 4% unemployment as of the beginning of 2010) and Belgium (sorry no recent stats).Another point I would like to make however, is that socialism has never been truly instituted in a nation. In fact, it wouldn't work on a national level because there would always be the corrupting influence of capitalism on the outside of the nation. Instead it would either have to be a global socialist state, or the potential socialist "nation" would have to be completely cut off from the rest of the world. It would have to be almost entirely self-sufficient, which we know is nearly, if not completely, impossible. I suggest this article: http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/socmeans.htm.  I agree with it to a large extent.