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

I assume that you must have been grossly mis-informed about Socialism. The workers own the means of production, we are referring to Socialism, not the Soviet Union. Socialism means prosperity for everyone in society, there is no economic disparity, unlike capitalism.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

The workers own the means of production, we are referring to Socialism, not the Soviet Union.Unless you are referring to anarcho-socialism or talking like one of those politicians who just says "the workers" and "the people" every few seconds, you are referring to unionism. Unionism is still capitalism.Also, you seemed to be grossly mis-informed about Socialism, or its definition at least. Socialism can mean collective or government ownership, in most cases, it has been government ownership.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Have you completely ignored the information that I have given to you? It appears you have. I am also not referring to unionism. The Socialism that I am referring to is similar to that implemented in Scandinavian countries. Ever notice that Scandinavian countries are at the top of the list for most things? The common thread is the element of Socialism.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Have you completely ignored the information that I have given to you? It appears you have.Have you completely ignored the information I have presented to you? apparently you have...The Socialism that I am referring to is similar to that implemented in Scandinavian countries.Although America has more economic freedoms, Scandinavian countries are not socialist. Actually, in comparison to the United States, every Scandinavian country (except for Norway) have MORE economic freedom when it comes to businesses.Calling a country like Sweden socialist would be like calling The United States Laissez-faire, its just not true. Ever notice that Scandinavian countries are at the top of the list for most things? The common thread is the element of Socialism.China and Russia's economies are booming, despite both these countries pasts they are both very Capitalist. Scandinavia isn't socialist.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Calling a country like Sweden socialist would be like calling The United States Laissez-faire, its just not true. News Flash!! There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently, and the socialists still hold power.China and Russia's economies are boomingRussia's economy is not booming. You can't go in the Neva River because of the bones of the deceased. These are not from Stalin's time, they are from the Mafia.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

News Flash!! There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently, and the socialists still hold power.News Flash!! Did you listen to anything I just said? The only thing that makes Sweden "socialist" is their high income tax on the rich and their redistribution/welfare... oh wait, America has that to! Just because the "socialist" hold power does not mean that a) the politicians are actually socialist or b) the country is socialist. Also, large, privately owned companies do not match up with the idea of socialism, and considering IKEA, H&Mand Ericsson are all very large, wealthy and privately owned companies, I wouldn't say that their industry is very socialist...Russia's economy is not booming. You can't go in the Neva River because of the bones of the deceased. These are not from Stalin's time, they are from the Mafia.I said their economy is going, not their crime rate is dropping.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Here is the proper documentation proving Sweden has a large Socialist influence in their economy. This cannot be denied. http://www.policymic.com/articles/3250/sweden-s-socialist-based-society-can-be- a-model-for-america
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

This can be denied, all ideas are falsifiable. This shows does not show that Sweden is socialist, it just says that they have a higher income tax rate and better public programs. Although you might think that their success is due to high taxes and strong regulation this says otherwise: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/29/saab-gm-chrysler-and-why-sweden-is-more-capitalist-than-the-us/?partner=yahootix Another source you should check out: http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/12/swedens-march-toward-capitalis
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Technically it can be denied; however, there is irrefutable evidence, so denying it would be groundless. Sweden is not 100% Socialist, but it has a good deal of its elements.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

No country is 100% anything, however, when it comes to "socialism" they just have a welfare state and government health care, that's it. Its a bit over simplified, but still, it would almost be like calling Canada socialist. There is no "irrefutable evidence" you act as if them having a high income tax and the following services I listed above makes the country socialist, even though it is far from it. Did you even look at the sources I gave you?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Socialism is not just about being a ''welfare'' state. It is about control over the means of production. And yes, I did look at the sources, too much capitalism for me I'm afraid.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I know it is not just about the welfare state, that is what I am saying, just because Sweden has a welfare state, state run health and high income taxes does not make them socialist. Again, calling Sweden socialist would be like calling America laissez faire, its just not accurate.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party Yes, it is wikipedia, but the chart that indicates the number of seats the Socialists have/had is accurate.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

...Seriously? Do I have to? Well, here we go.The name of the party in control is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party" it does not mean that:a) Sweden is a democratic socialist stateb) The party is currently socialistc) The party was ever socialistNames of parties =/= proof
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

c) The party was ever socialisthttp://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/sweden/program-1897.htmThis proves the Party was at one time full of Communists.b) The party is currently socialisthttp://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/ Internationellt/Other%20Languages/TheSwedishSocialDemocraticParty.pdf Social Democracy is part of Socialism.a) Sweden is a democratic socialist stateThis is purely subjective to judgment, but it still is Socialistic.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

This proves the Party was at one time full of Communists.The Democratic Party of America was pro-racial slavery at a time, does it mean they are today? No. Party names and history do not have to do with their current actions, seriously, the Communist Party of China runs a country that is more capitalist than most. This is purely subjective to judgment, but it still is Socialistic.All government is Socialistic and Capitalistic, and currently, the Capitalistic ideas out weight the Socialistic ones and Sweden is currently moving more to the right. Them being socialistic (just like most governments) does not mean they are socialist.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You were trying to prove that the SDP of Sweden was never Socialist. I proved that.On the second point, you are mostly correct. The SDP is sagging a bit in the polls, but they still built the country and have a strong influence.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

You were trying to prove that the SDP of Sweden was never Socialist. I proved that.Where do you see me say "The Swedish Social Democratic Party was never ever socialist""The name of the party in control is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party" it does not mean that:a) Sweden is a democratic socialist stateb) The party is currently socialistc) The party was ever socialistNames of parties =/= proof"I "trying to prove" saying they were never socialist, I was stating that simply because they have the label "Social Democratic Party" does not mean they are socialist, and as of the past decade or to, they have not been and Sweden has been getting better.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

c) The party was ever socialistI just gave you all the proof in the world for that!I also proved the additional points.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I just gave you all the proof in the world for that!I also proved the additional points.Do I have to say it again? "The name of the party in control is the "Swedish Social Democratic Party" it does not mean that:a) Sweden is a democratic socialist stateb) The party is currently socialistc) The party was ever socialist"I am not saying they were never socialist, I am saying that in your previous argument where you used the excuse "There was a Socialist Majority in Sweden's Parliament up until recently" that them having the name "Social" in their party does not make them Socialist, they are no longer socialist. Seriously, the Communist Party of China of once full Communist and they are now Capitalist, parties change, the "Socialists" having power doesn't mean anything when they... well, aren't socialist.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You're right, the name does not mean anything at all. One of the first Socialist parties in Canada was known as the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation. And the CCP is definitely just a bunch of Capitalists who use Communism as an excuse to hold onto power. This being said, you will have noticed in the constitution of the Swedish Social Democracy party, Socialism is mentioned, so it is part of Party ideology.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Yes, however, we are talking about the CURRENT times, the constitution means nothing. Look at America for example, its constitution is very Capitalist and Libertarian, but in modern times (as in now) it is not, it is a very Centrist and Authoritarian country.America was once Capitalist and Sweden was once Socialist. America is no longer Capitalist and Sweden is no longer Socialist.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

There is still a strong Socialist influence in Sweden. I think back to the constitution of the SDP of Sweden. It directly mentions Socialism.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

There is still a strong Socialist influence in Sweden.Yeah, "strong" influence.I think back to the constitution of the SDP of Sweden. It directly mentions Socialism.Please refer to my previous argument about constitutions, they don't really count unless they are being followed.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You're wasting your time with him... unless you're doing it for entertainment or for passing time. He is extremely biased, narrow-minded, and closed-minded. You can keep repeating the same over and over but he will never listen, he won't even try to understand anything (probably 'cause he cannot, for whatever reason).
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

You can keep repeating the same over and over but he will never listen, he won't even try to understand anything (probably 'cause he cannot, for whatever reason).It is funny how when people don't see it your way (or very similar to your way) you immediately start ranting about how they don't understand or listen and how they are ignorant and narrow minded. Rather immature...
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Yes, what he said may be a bit crude; however, on this issue, you do seem to be repeating yourself and ignoring the legitimate facts that I have provided.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

The only reason I said you don't understand or listen is because you do not. The fact that you are stupid and narrow-minded, etc., comes from the previous arguments I've had with you.You are incapable of looking objectively at the world we live in, and you are also incapable of objectively looking at yourself, evidently, and now you proved it again. This conclusion is based on your arguments.There is no right or wrong, there is no good or evil, there is no meaning for anything. But since it happened so that we exist and since all life seems to work toward survival it is reasonable to assume that as the utmost importance to us. After all, what would be the point for all that we do if we didn't care about our survival and then one day just went extinct? As to survival, what would be the best characteristics that should be striven for - capitalism, does not support those characteristics. I'll leave the rest for you to figure out, while knowing you are incapable of doing so.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

The only reason I said you don't understand or listen is because you do not. The fact that you are stupid and narrow-minded, etc., comes from the previous arguments I've had with you.You are incapable of looking objectively at the world we live in, and you are also incapable of objectively looking at yourself, evidently, and now you proved it again. This conclusion is based on your arguments.Mainly due to me seeing it in a different light than you do. You have a way of thinking where you argue in a "think like me or you didn't think" although you deny this and tend to just throw childish insults at me, it is very true. Part of thinking freely is accepting that when others think freely they will think differently, just because they are on the opposite side does not mean they didn't think.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

What says that it will ensure the best quality of care?Uuh, this is what happens when capitalists try to think outside their money box. You miss crucial context.The point is, YOU ensure that only the best quality of care exists because YOU are the one who needs the care. See what I'm getting at here?Everything in socialism is done for the good of the PEOPLE, now unless you're a Martian or a bottle-nosed dolphin, you count. I'm sorry that you're not really better than anyone else, you're essentially the same.Now instead of lamenting at how average you are, you could just focus on the point of our friend's argument.Only the best quality of service is allowed because the people in charge of the means demand only the best quality of service. Guess who is in charge of the means :oYou, me, that blonde over there, that fat guy. And i've got news for you, we ALL want good healthcare. I don't want to go to a doctor who says my lung cancer is just advanced asthma. I'm gonna guess that you don't want that either. Who does? no one. But in capitalism, it's okay to have terrible quality healthcare as long as it's priced low. Rich people will always get better healthcare, because they're rich and can afford it. But what about the people who can't?They die of "asthma"
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

In Socialism, the means of production are controlled with the workers in mind.Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government.You're thinking of socialism from a capitalist perspective.That government that own the means is a government whose sole concern is the welfare of the people. Such government does not seek profit from the work of their people, they seek people profiting from their work. I use profit in a broader sense than monetary.In capitalism, the average working class man must sell himself to those who control the means of production. This is not economic liberty.You don't "Sell" yourself, you voluntarily agree to do a service in return for money and/or benefits. You have the right to start up your own business at any time or you could work for someone else's business and get some of their profit and climb your way higher in the company.If "voluntarily agreeing to do a service in return for money and/or benefits" is not just a classy way of saying "Sell yourself", then I am obviously missing the grand beauty that is a world where the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The concept of performing a service for a company in return for money implies that the person performing the service is undervalued. If you were being paid fairly for your work, then your employer would not gain a profit. Now, they can and will appease you by saying things such as, "It's only a starting wage" or "there is always opportunity for advancement" but what is happening all the way up the ladder is that the people who are above you are underpaying you so that they can turn a profit.Put in a basic business equation:IF (Wage paid to worker)+(Cost of materials)= (Value of Goods), the business will never turn a profit.One of the two must be undervalued to gain profit. Since the materials are more or less constant, the only thing to modify significantly is the wage paid to workers. A business equation that works in a capitalist environment is:IF (Wage paid to worker)+(Cost of Materials)<(Value of Goods), the business turns a profit. as i said before, as a general rule, the (Cost of materials) is a constant. The (Value of Goods) is determined by the current market, basic supply/demand principles, so for the basis of argument, is also constant, however, always greater than the (Cost of Materials).(In the model of a SUCCESSFUL business). The variable is (Wage paid to Worker). Since the value of an object is determined by cost of material and work put into production, the worker MUST be underpaid to turn a profit.This ensures that everyone prospers.No, it ensure the government will have a monopoly, you have to pay for their goods and services because 1. they are the only provider and 2. if you don't they can take legal action against you.Once again, you're assuming the government is Capitalist-minded rather than Socialist-minded. We're proposing a Socialist government. That, once again, means a government BY the people, FOR the people. The people's needs and wants always take precedence in this form of government.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You are speaking of communism not socialism. You are assuming a perfect Capitalistic Society so to fit the argument to your own examples we must look at a perfect socialist society as well.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

"Actually no, all means of production are owned by the government."in Capitalist it's owned by rich people in the way that monarchy works. I'm failing to see how is that any better.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Amen good sir mr Franklin would be proud. In these hard times we should look to the words of our founders.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

No we shouldn't. Why would you ever look to 1776 on answers on anything. If your car broke down, would you think " I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would do here". We've learned a lot, leave the past were it is.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

The point is their philosophies which are very relevant today. 1776 is when the idea of property rights for all was finally tried in a big way. Sharing the "means of production" is a much older and outdated idea. Land used to belong to kings and lords (government) whose duty is was to protect their people. This is socialism, and it's outdated. Capitalism is simply property rights and freedom. Freedom means independent action, absent coercion. Freedom does not mean that I am a slave because I only have the skills for manual labor.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society? How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?Who decides what projects get built and how?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society?  In Socialist countries, there is still a supply and demand, it is just more regulated. Central planning also looks at what people need and to an extent, what people want. This information is passed on to producers.How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?Through trade, hard currency is earned. i.e. Oil for Gold. This gives the currency value. Taxes are then collected and the government can pay for projects. Who decides what projects get built and how?The workers, central planning organization, or government. This depends on the type of Socialism.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Central planning also looks at what people need and to an extent, what people want.How do they know?How is this calculated?This information is passed on to producers.how?How would a new type of product, such as an iPhone, be invented and produced under socialism?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Okay Milton Friedman ;) An economy based on economic planning appropriates its resources as needed, so that allocation comes in the form of internal transfers as opposed to market transactions involving the purchasing of assets by one government agency or firm by another. Decision-making is made by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Okay Milton Friedman ;) LOL, you flatter me. :D Decision-making is made by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.How do they calculate the need?How do they communicate the result of the calculation?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Demand calculates need. This is one thing that is similar to Capitalism. The result is sent to those who do the labor.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Demand calculates need. How is the demand communicated? This is one thing that is similar to Capitalism. The result is sent to those who do the labor.Socialism does not have the same communication system as capitalism.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Dude. Seriously? "How is the demand communicated?"Have you been living in a place where the internet doesn't exist.. or where phones don't exist, or letters, reports. Do you know that in some places, people carry out studies to find out more about other people?I mean, living under a rock must be fun and all, but if you can SPEAK, you can communicate. Common sense dictates that people communicate with each other.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I want to be sure I understand this. To communicate demand, say for milk, rather than going and buying milk you would simply "communicate" that demand online? All the things you need you would just fill out surveys? In Russia demand was communicated through very long bread lines. The demand for bread was clear, but the supply was absent. At least today they wouldn't have to stand in line, they can sit at home and communicate their demand. How would they communicate demand for more phones and computers?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Copycat is hitting the nail on the head. Historically, Socialist nations have relied on Capitalistic nations for their price information concerning markets. It's important to remember that since workers are busy working, they don't have the time or skill for all this planning. That's why central planners are so important in socialism. This is also why inequality is such a bigger problem in Socialist countries.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society?How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?Who decides what projects get built and how?Who bakes the cake that you want to have while you eat it too? Who pays for a free lunch?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

10 people on this page are completely delusional and have no knowledge of history or how economy's function
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

This coming from someone who is a brony. Capitalism does not work. You are an insult to Soviet Equestria.