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

Well, I should clarify by saying that the United States isn't Capitalist anymore, it is a Mixed-Market economy. So while we still have a huge amount of political influence and control going to economic interests (businessmen and businesses) there are protections and buffers against that power. We the people can still vote, still have a say in the way our country is governed; we still have common Democratic power to shape our nation and its policies. We can, through the vote, force companies to do something or not do something, we can take money away from businesses and put them into social projects. In a purely Capitalist society this would not be able to occur. In a pure Capitalist society; there wouldn't be any vote-buying, any lobbying, any corruption. The government would be under direct control of, or have little to no power over the business world. Meaning, we would literally have a government (or society governed by) Mcdonalds, IBM, and Wal-Mart.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

not exactly. the government will just not be able to run these businesses. this allowing people to choose whatever they want to do. smoke weed, eat a burger, listen to metal, watch violent movies, play violent video games, go on any site on the internet despite the politics behind it (including CD). if you mean the businesses control us because we need them, that can be the same argument for a nanny state. at least with corporations, we choose which one we want, creating competition. the problem with the government running things is that it's harder for governments to create competition for the civilians.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I think you need to catch up on our political system. Are you actually pretending that corporations, big money interests, and powerful (and wealthy) capitalists do not exert a huge amount of influence over our government?Through campaign contributions, control over mass media outlets (television, radio, national and local newspapers, major websites), lobbying upon lobbying, gifts..etc..etc..the corporations, the business powers have the most say over how our government is run.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

although that is possible, it is all done freely. anyone has the ability to do so (if they strive for it). I know about people like George Soros, but here's the thing, people like George Soros are people expressing their right to free speech and freedom of property. it's either this or we give the government control over everything (which is a one party problem too). at least through capitalism we have both sides doing this kind of thing, still evening it out. although, i can tell already you're for a one party system.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

In other words; it is perfectly fine that the wealthy have the most political power because they achieved it "freely". Anyone has the ability to become wealthy and thus achieve political power, according to you. The same can be said of political power, as long as the system is based on true democratic or republican principles (the ideas, not the parties) anyone can be freely elected by popular vote and make decisions on behalf of the public.What is the difference then between a representative or democratic government making decisions and having the most say or wealthy businessmen and women having the most say?Is it not true that one is elected specifically to make decisions on behalf of the people? (or the people decide directly what will occur). Why is it that when I buy a box of cornflakes I hand over control of my government to Kellogg, they sell me cereal and decide where my stop-signs go (or who has the power to decide where they go). I think all you have in your argumentative quiver are arrows of rhetoric. None of what you are saying has anything to do with my point of view, nothing to do with my ideology. George Soros? You are telling me that the system "evens out" because there is a rich man who is supposedly left of the spectrum balancing out the rich men on the right? The whole problem I am talking about is the domination of our political system by these rich men and women, these people who are not elected by us but to whom the government most answers to.Two opposing groups of minorities do not a real political spectrum make. We are still being run by two groups that are not representative of even a fraction of the U.S. population. Two groups that, in total, amount to 1% of the citizenry have the most say in who gets to run for office, who has the money to run, who gets their voices heard, and who gets "fringe benefits" for running and winning.At least apartheid South African blacks had some representation in parliament during the 80s, how many poor or middle-class representatives, senators, and presidents have we had? How many got there without being supported by the wealthy, ultra-wealthy, or major corporations?"although, i can tell already you're for a one party system."Just because I am a leftist against the domination of our society by the wealthy does not mean I advocate for a one-party totalitarian state. Your assumptions that our choices are: Control by the rich or control by a one-party dictatorship are patently false. We can have a freely elected multi-party democracy which decides things on the public's behalf, one that isn't beholden to corporate and wealthy interests. We can have an economy controlled by the people for the people, not by the government and for the government or by the rich and for the rich. You really need to open your mind to the wide spectrum of political beliefs and concepts out there. Try doing a little reading, venture further than wherever it is you are getting your information now, try actually debating people and listening to their opinions instead of blasting inane rhetoric at them.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

wait, i just thought you were bitching about campaign contributions, but you actually think the corporations run this country?i think this country would be way more libertarian if they did (which actually isn't so bad). 1. drugs, prostitution and gambling are big money makers and the pharmaceutical companies can make a shit load off of legalizing drugs. but... if they run things... how come they're not legal? how come everytime a politician accepts money or gifts from corporations they get in trouble or even arrested... it seems we're already socialist and living your dream... no free exchange of money cause there just has to be a reason for it. definitely not what this country was built on. it was created to make sure that no matter how insane something might seem, it should still be legal cause it involves what we do with our own property. but i keep forgetting... i'm talking to a commie, you're not a fan of our American values. this basically goes nowhere, but here comes the other points anyways.2. you complain about where a stop sign goes. really? i mean, if that's how much power they have, that they're worrying about where a stop sign goes... you really shouldn't worry. stop sign locations tend to be Universal.3. not freely elected if the citizens are limited on campaign contributions, and government shouldn't censor the media. we have two major parties for this reason, because they are their own watch dogs. sites like the Daily Kos and Media Matters constantly attack any right wing statement, and shows like the O'reilly Factor constantly attack Far left media for inaccuracies. 4. it kind of actually sucks that corporations don't have more power. i'm really waiting for flat tax and drugs to be legal.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

i'm really not angry at anything. it's more funny on how you actually believe the crap you put forward.1. you've gone from them having power to just being influential. and? how exactly do we prevent that? who will control the media? the government (you said no, so it has to be the people then), and i do know that poor people have media sources too, but guess what, it's the rich who just happen to get it out there better (on tv that is). so really, the only other option is for the government to take over the media... i know you don't want that, so you're just dancing in circles.2. it seems you're more on insulting me than actually explaining thing, and that's very sad.3. drugs, prostitution and gambling are examples of freedom. land of the free... right?4. it's free when the government doesn't get involved. if you level the playing field (supposed equality) that's not equal treatment. hence, us losing our freedoms.5. democracy is the people voting in every idea put fourth... we're a republic, where we vote in represenatives (democratic republic since we vote in ammendments too). so far, i still see the people voting in who they want to become elected officials. if the rich are rigging elections, that's a different story that involves breaking the law.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

you still like those personal attacks... o well, i still say i do respect your beliefs, cause you do bring up good and interesting points.can you limit power from the rich without having the government get involved at all? the business men are just going to let everyone run things? they're not gonna work hard to make more money? what's stopping them? if you say the people have a say in what gets aired, they'll need a way to enforce that. that's creating a government who will enforce this control. hence, creating governmental power over the media. you bring up an interesting point on democracy. Democracy in a way does limit the people's freedom. put it this way, the people have the ability to vote out the first amendment in a full on democracy. i don't believe the government should hold power over the people, but i also believe that NO ONE should tell others what to do with their private lives. with a full on democracy, the people have the ability to vote in commie laws that hurt our freedoms. i think certain ways should be permanently set, so that no matter what the majority thinks, we will always have our freedom to do w/e we want with our own lives. i believe the government's role is purely to protect us from physical wrong doing and "lying". and, of course, the ability to set contracts. i also believe some other shit, but i am careful to make sure that government does not run our lives nor allow our lives to be ran. the country already isn't a full on democracy cause they see that idea is failed, you can't just have democracy. the problem is that we decided to become more authoritarian on that point instead of libertarian.now, we do differ in opinion (obviously), but maybe you just don't see what i'm trying to say. it's very obvious that you're more authoritarian, and i can see why, because you wish to level the playing field. you believe the government's responsibility is to make everyone equal to eachother. i believe the government's role is to make sure that we don't kill eachother or cheat our way through. i do understand why you want but you want, but i hold a principle that no one (no matter how many) has the right to control my life or tell me what to do. it may seem unfair to just allow these rich guys to build their businesses and control the market with their vices and temptations, but is it worth allowing the government to ban vices and redistribute wealth? it may seem that way, but i don't think millions of people who just want more freedom and less government are retarded. maybe they just don't want to be bothered anymore. the true question is, which is do you find more unfair? Authoritarian power or Corporate growth?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

nope, i believe no one should have authority over our private lives... don't get how that's authoritarian somehow... seems more libertarian. if you give "people" the ability to vote in commie laws like "no drugs, no gambling, no swearing on tv, no fast cars, no violent video games" how do you call that freedom? true democracy is simply the slower way to lead to facism. the other way is through dictatorship. why? because people in general panic when something hurts someone and quickly rally round to make it illegal.thus causing them to create laws that limit our individual rights. yes yes, say i act like a juvenile because of my libertarian beliefs, but believing that government should restrict certain individuals in order to make other individuals happier (such as redistribute wealth or censorship) is also a belief we hold as children. ever maybe think... we just think of a lot of shit as kids? i understand that you feel Libertarians (i wouldn't exactly say i am one, but hold many of their beliefs in this area) are really just thinking "god, stay out of my life", but who are we really to decide what's good for an individual? i don't want power to go to the rich (i was joking a few posts back), i was purely saying that if corporates did control the country, we'd be a lot more libertarian (in a semi-satirical way).i don't have a problem with the government enforcing basic laws, it's more of a problem with just more laws. yeah, rape and murder is wrong cause it's physical force against someone... but nothing wrong with a large corporation creating shit that i like. doesn't matter if the employees get payed a dollar an hour, they have their choice.as for media, the people do run it. the rich are just more heard because they created the tvs, and they created the news organizations. sounds bad if all of a sudden the government starts telling them how to run their corporation (News Corp is a corporation). it really just comes to which you rather have. I understand and respect your view, it's one that i held for quite awhile. but i truly believe that a libertarian government is more free. the only thing i could say that really is authoritarian about it (beyond the scale i mean) is that it makes the laws of individual freedoms permanent. although i've been changed after reading a lot on political philosophy, we're all just different. i don't expect you to change from what i write, which is why i decided to stop making sarcastic remarks, i just want you to understand the views that libertarians (and those with libertarian beliefs) hold.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

i'm not for a purely libertarian system, but at a point of common sense. as for when a government reaches the inevitable point or overpower, we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control).remember permanent laws? how bout make it that streets, town squares, forests, shit like that are owned by no one (except for the street lights and stop signs shit). listen, i'm talking about common sense here. not about either government (people) rule it or the wealthy own it. i'm saying no one runs it. yes, there can be land patches available for buying, but in order to protect our individual rights, we will need to set permanent laws stating that no one controls this country in general.as for the argument thing, that's when i realized that a heated debate leads nowhere, so i decided to stop getting sarcastic (psychology thing). i've been saying the same thing, just been more rude about it.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."Welcome to Communism."remember permanent laws? how bout make it that streets, town squares, forests, shit like that are owned by no one (except for the street lights and stop signs shit)."Welcome to Communism."yes, there can be land patches available for buying, but in order to protect our individual rights, we will need to set permanent laws stating that no one controls this country in general."Again, welcome to Communism my friend. "as for the argument thing, that's when i realized that a heated debate leads nowhere, so i decided to stop getting sarcastic (psychology thing). i've been saying the same thing, just been more rude about it."You actually havn't been saying the same thing, if what you say is true you've been exaggerating your position through sarcasm the entire time. You are much closer to my opinion than you first indicated, actually. It's rather interesting. Let's go back to this, though:"as for when a government reaches the inevitable point or overpower, we simply violently revolt against a wealthy individual who exerts an unreasonable amount of power (if he can actually reach that amount of land control)."What about a minority of the population? Not one person but many operating together under the same ideology and system? They may compete against each other (like politicians do), but more or less their policies are the same and they, together, control most of the property, land, and jobs in the country.Do we revolt against them?Let me state, finally, that I agree that we should maximize each person's individual freedom. Noone should be told what to do unless it is absolutely necessary. Right now, however, I am most worried about the fact that we can't even get down to providing those freedoms because our government, society, and economy is run by the wealthy. Once we are equal noone can control us; once we are equal we can be free. And, as you have stated, once we have spaces that noone owns (which means everyone owns it equally), only then can we be safe in our freedom.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

the thing about communism though is that the government decides what is done with these patches of land. they tell the people what to do. i'm referring to make it that no one is told what to do.a violent revolution can also be considered anarchist, since, that is what results from a violent revolution usually. actually, under communist rule, that is the perfect time to violently revolt.communism has the government run things, set laws that they feel is for the better good, libertarianism states that no one runs things (when it comes to individual freedoms and the market). since land is a thing that is just there and belongs to the earth, no one can actually own it. now, it's not bad for rich people to own land, but what i'm against is anarcho-capitalism (where they can own everything). it's not that i'm for communism (which means they can't run shit). there are just certain pieces of land that the government keeps (like we have now). highways and streets. but strips and property is still around, nothing against that.i see that you have a point on the wealthy have the most say (in a warped, but true way), because they create things that the people use. tv for instance. but the thing is, they created it, and the people have decided to use the media as their reference. i just don't believe that restrictions should be made on the market like that.but it once again ends in you wanting everyone to be set into equal roles where no one has a disadvantage, and i want people to have different things to work for and look forward to. this, of course, leading to some who become wealthy and others who become homeless.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

1. i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically). people who become mega rich have chosen that path. they've chosen the path of business, no friends, constant paranoia, and excruciating stress. an old saying "Anyone can make money if that's all they want", and it's very true. most of us don't go for that though, why? cause that life sucks for most of us. yes, you have all the money in the world, but that's it. no life, no friends, just work and constant thoughts of suicide. 2. when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it". 3. i'm not gonna kill you if you become mayor, but if you decide to...take away gunsban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.restrict the market and redistribute wealth...I may actually consider it.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

"i think it's more about choice. and yes, i am a "tough shit" type of guy. i don't see why we should be deciding who deserves more than the other. why not let the market decide (which is us technically)."That's a pretty big contradiction. You've basically admitted that both the "market" and government decisions are people deciding what to do with other people. Your argument falls flat on its face at this point."when a person rules everyone and they can't be free within that country because of this individual, it's not just because they're rich and powerful, it's because they're a dictator. violent revolution against a dictator isn't left or right, it's just people saying "we're not gonna take it"."A dictator? I am confused, this person acquired this power completely legally. They did it without violence; they just did it by buying and selling property; the basis of your system. Why is it okay to kill them for exercising their basic right to own and run their property?Anyways, according to your definition of what a dictator is and following the system of economics you desire you end up fighting against, possibly violently, the people who became successful because of their talent and ability to achieve within the system you yourself endorse.When you propose methods of keeping this from happening they end up following the beliefs of Karl Marx himself, as well as other classical and modern Socialists, Communists, an Anarcho-Communists. "take away gunsban cigs, drugs, alcohol, porn, etc.restrict the market and redistribute wealth...I may actually consider it."And if the majority of people choose to vote for these measures, will you kill all of them as well? I mean, with respect to the banning of drugs thing you have quite a large number of people on your "execution consideration list" seeing as both parties are still pretty solid on banning narcotics and a majority of the population wants to keep that ban in place. And you call me authoritarian. You do realize that killing people because they institute policies you don't agree with; especially if these policies are voted for or supported by the majority population, is a text-book definition of authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if you are doing it "for freedom", murdering people because they have a different definition of freedom is certainly authoritarian.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

1. if one man rules all and tells everyone what to do, it doesn't matter how he got the power, it matters what he's doing now. we're restricted from any freedom, and it's more natural to revolt. you have to stop seeing things as black and white.2. it's not just ban drugs, it's all of those things. it's complete control over the lives of individuals. really, the turning point would have to be the banning of guns (as the NRA believes) because that is really our only chance of revolting. the people ban things and then unban them left and right, but that doesn't make it right for them to do so. but that is why wars are fought, for conflicting ideals (revolutionary war would be best example). 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?maybe it's just because "freedom" itself means more to me than it does to others.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

it doesn't have to be everyone agreeing to vote against democracy, it only needs the majority. and are you saying you'd just let it happen?and i chose to walk into wal-mart... wal-mart didn't force me to do shit.