azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Let's play a game, a person gives you ten dollars to split with me, if I accept we get the money, if I reject we get nada. How much would you offer me?Well, for the sake of argument, let's say it can only be split into ten separate dollars. If I offer you zero dollars then you should be indifferent as to whether you accept or reject the offer. If I offer you one dollar then you should accept the dollar rather than get nothing. But only a free market economist would think that that makes any sense. Since we both have to cooperate to get the ten dollars then you would expect a fair share of that ten dollars. You would expect five dollars and be disappointed by anything less. Below a certain point, perhaps three dollars and less, your disappointment would be enough that you would rather forgo your meagre reward to ensure that I did not receive an unfairly large reward. Not only are you prepared to punish my greed, but you're also prepared to incur losses to yourself in punishing me.Taking account of your actual psychology, I should probably offer you four or five dollars. But knowing what you're testing me for, and since it's only ten dollars, I would probably offer you the whole ten dollars provided you bought me lunch. I would then, of course, order something priced at nine dollars. ;)
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I agree that capitalism is a good system.I have no intention to rob a bank or unfold a ponzi scheme or rob anybody.Everyone is rational and irrational in their own way.I would offer you $5
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

they are liars yes, but if we had a better way of checking their facts and proving or disproving those facts are lies, we would have a better chance of having a goverment withour courption. i think politicans should forfeit some if not all of their right to privacy, atleast until their time in office is up.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

We already have a way of fact checking- conformation hearings, but nothing is fool-proof, because the government is corrupt.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

GLAD TO CREATE INSPIRATIONBohemian contradicted himself: "If we were to create a system in which power is more evenly distributed then we would see a drop in corruption." Basically, he is advocating socialism or communism. Some kind of left wing government.However, later, Bohemain writes, "As long as humans are involved no system is absent of corruption."Well, this only solidifies my statement that there is no system that is not corrupt.Why because humans are inherently corrupt and have an insatiable desire for greed and it doesn't matter whether it is capitalism, socialism, dictatorship or theocracy.With more capitalism, not only is there political freedom, but there is economic freedom. People are able to adventure into entrepreneurship.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Bohemian contradicted himself: That's not a contradiction. He said that there would be less corruption, not that it wouldn't exist.Why because humans are inherently corrupt and have an insatiable desire for greed and it doesn't matter whether it is capitalism, socialism, dictatorship or theocracy.I don't behave this way, and there are others like me. YOU are the one who feels this way, which is why you so desperately support free-market capitalism which is perhaps the most exploitative and unequal system one could hope for.With more capitalism, not only is there political freedom, but there is economic freedom. People are able to adventure into entrepreneurship.In free-market capitalism you can work your employees in sweatshops and pay them in credits which only allow them to buy goods from stores that you own near the job site. In free-market capitalism you can sell radioactive water as a panacea and not fear lawsuits because of "let the buyer beware" policies. In a free market there are no safety laws that prevent a company from disposing of heavy metals and deadly wastes in nearby rivers, and so we get toxic waste dumps and people dead in the nearby towns. In free-market capitalism companies can trade debts, or create unstable bubbles that cause major economic recessions. All of this and more, with corporate impunity because they have the money and therefore the power to buy laws.That's why we no longer have a free market. We did, and our workers suffered, our consumers suffered, and our environment suffered. The free market doesn't solve ethical issues.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I don't behave this way, and there are others like me. YOU are the one who feels this way, which is why you so desperately support free-market capitalism which is perhaps the most exploitative and unequal system one could hope for.Oh, yeah, your friend, the teacher as well. You don't possess a bone of greed in your body. You are a Commie at Heart. Great!!!Sweet shops, Water Pollution, Safety Laws, and RecessionsLuckily, for those who know what Laissez-faire capitalism or free market capitalism is, none of these fears would apply because it allows industry to be free, and it certainty doesn't mean polluting, child labor, or unsafe workplaces, it destroys the regulations and restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies such as public schools, USPS, international trade and central banks.As for recessions, the responsibility is in large part due to the Federal Reserve as its monetary policy.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Oh, yeah, your friend, the teacher as well. You don't possess a bone of greed in your body. You are a Commie at Heart. Great!!!It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals than amassing wealth and taking advantage of my power to harm others.Luckily, for those who know what Laissez-faire capitalism or free market capitalism is, none of these fears would apply becauseAll I'm getting from you is "but it's not REALLY free market when things go wrong" even though from the early industrial revolutions to the early 1900s, it WAS a free market void of industry regulations.Do you know what happened when consumer protection acts didn't exist? Inventors (sorry, entrepreneurs) were free to sell patent medicine which could be made of ANYTHING, and they could make bogus claims like X product curing any disease or malady. A famous case was irradiated water sold as a sort of love potion. Someone drank a bunch of bottles and lost his jaw from cancer.Same with dumping toxic compounds. Leather factories dumped all sorts of heavy metals right outside their plants with no concern for health. Coal miners became very ill from the job and weren't owed any compensation.A free market is an abusive market.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals than amassing wealth and taking advantage of my power to harm others.Great, go for it.All I'm getting from you is "but it's not REALLY free market when things go wrong" even though from the early industrial revolutions to the early 1900s, it WAS a free market void of industry regulations.Free market capitalism does NOT mean there is no government regulation or influence on commerce. That is a false assertion. This is explained in my last post.Free market" means that producers are free to gain entry into business and sell their product at whatever price feasible in order to stay in business; meanwhile consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept. Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies. Plus, consumer protection can also be asserted via non-government organizations and individuals as consumer activism.The early industrial revolution lack any government regulation of human health because the lack of knowledge on the dangers of exposing humans to harmful compounds or chemicals.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Free market capitalism does NOT mean there is no government regulation or influence on commerce. That is a false assertion. This is explained in my last post.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market If a government is imposing regulations on what can and cannot be sold and the standards by which products can be sold, it isn't a free market.Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies. Not really. Consumer protection is government intervention which limits what companies may sell and how they may sell it. The market isn't working its magic to eliminate products that are bad for consumers.The early industrial revolution lack any government regulation of human health because the lack of knowledge on the dangers of exposing humans to harmful compounds or chemicals.Right. Back then we didn't know that Mercury and Arsenic were poisons. I'm being sarcastic by the way. These were commonly used compounds in manufacture of leathers and other products. You know the Mad Hatter, right? Why was he mad?They just didn't care. No pressure to have practices that are clean and free of poisons.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

It may be hard for you to imagine but I have bigger goals Still waiting....If a government is imposing regulations on what can and cannot be sold and the standards by which products can be sold, it isn't a free market.Correct, but that is a regulated market, but a free market or laissez faire only pertains to economic laws such as eliminating unions, tariffs, government monopolies, minimum wage, duties, and trade restrictions whereas child labor laws and workplace safety are social laws and clean water is environmental. These effect business costs, but not affect the idea of a free market or laissez faire.Not really. Consumer protection is government intervention which limits what companies may sell and how they may sell it. The market isn't working its magic to eliminate products that are bad for consumers.Wrong. The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. The Bureau conducts investigations, sues companies and people who violate the law, develops rules to protect consumers, and educates consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. The Bureau also collects complaints about consumer fraud and identity theft and makes them available to law enforcement agencies across the country.CP
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Correct, but that is a regulated market, but a free market or laissez faire only pertains to economic laws such as eliminating unions, tariffs, government monopolies, minimum wage, duties, and trade restrictions whereas child labor laws and workplace safety are social laws and clean water is environmental. These effect business costs, but not affect the idea of a free market or laissez faire.I'll restate since you seem to not understand what I said. The Industrial revolution saw a free market. What came of this were companies that became monopolies, created sweatshops, dumped toxic wastes and had unsafe products and working conditions.Lack of government regulations on the market allowed these companies to grow in power, and it allowed these companies to become abusive.You seem to think that allowing companies free reign will keep them small and unable to resist legislation that promotes better work conditions, and so forth. What happens is that they become monopolies and exhert power over lawmakers so that social conditions remain unequal.Wrong. The Bureau of Consumer Protection works to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. The Bureau conducts investigations, sues companies and people who violate the law, develops rules to protect consumers, and educates consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. The Bureau also collects complaints about consumer fraud and identity theft and makes them available to law enforcement agencies across the country.CPThe Bureau of Consumer Protection = government. Government != market.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

You seem to have a hard time comprehending the difference between social to environmental to economic laws. So, I will restate since you seem to not understand what I said. Dumping Waste, Child Labor laws are not economic laws. Is it? No, it is social and environmental laws. Government monopolies and tariffs are economic laws.You seem to think that allowing companies free reign will keep them small and unable to resist legislation that promotes better work conditions, and so forth. What happens is that they become monopolies and exhert power over lawmakers so that social conditions remain unequal.Government creates big business with regulations.Government regulations create private monopolies.Big Government and Big Business (Not my ideal) = CorruptionI am not for big business either but you have a different perceptive that regulations help the little guy, but in reality, regulations help big business.The Bureau of Consumer Protection = government. Government != market.WTF?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Dumping Waste, Child Labor laws are not economic laws. Is it? No, it is social and environmental laws. Government monopolies and tariffs are economic laws.Dumping waste, child labour, etc. is the result of the ABSENCE of government intervention and legislation.Government creates big business with regulations.Government regulations create private monopolies.Big business forms as a result of the business owners taking the logical step, once successful, of buying out or bankrupting their competition, resulting in a monopoly with great wealth.Government regulation can hasten this, typically when the business provides favours to politicians.Big Government and Big Business (Not my ideal) = CorruptionI am not for big business either but you have a different perceptive that regulations help the little guy, but in reality, regulations help big business.Regulations have made unions possible, have given us minimum wage, prohibited child labour, set minimum work conditions and safety (OSHA), eliminated the sweat-shop, and prohibits monopolies and price fixing.So yeah, we've been helped out a lot.Remember that in capitalism the end game is to no longer have market competition for your business. This results in huge amounts of wealth if executed successfully. Wealth always means power, especially political power, and the little man just cannot compete with that.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

It's an obvious fact. If you need proof, try shopping for a career in different parts of the nation and pay attention to how much the rate of pay fluctuates.Odd that you are putting the burden of proof on me instead of yourself.Resources are limited and so is money....Therefore capitalism must be shifting and redistributing wealth. In other words, we benefit at the expense of other nations. That's how capitalism works.I understand your a socialist or a communist. No, capitalism creates wealth. If it redistributed wealth, America would not be what it is today.Sure nobody wants to work in sweatshops in developing nations nor in the industrial revolution, but what is their alternative, agrarian economy where they work all day in the heat working hard labor on the farm where they are self sufficient or they can work at a sweetshop where it benefits their community along with global economy. The Industrial Resolution was our developing nation period. We are not developing nation because over time we accumulated wealth and capital through education and development of skills and talents. These developing nations are at the very same crossroads as we were 150 years ago.Whatever job we have here pays between four and ten times the annual salary for the same work. This is capitalism creating poverty.What is so difficult to understand that development in the accumulation of skills and talents. On can infer a lot from what you write.Yeah, I am sure. I would love to read that.Nazi Germany came about via democracy. Also, wartime versus peacetime doesn't change anything. We annihilated tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and then tens of thousands more died from fallout-related disease.But hey, you're forgetting all the death squads that capitalist democracies fund. What about the arms trade we fund and buy into? How about the diamond trade and slavery that we support by dealing with African diamonds?When the numbers are added up, I am sure the number killed by Mao Ze-Dong of 50 to 80 million and 23 million killed by Joseph Stalin equaling 73 to 103 million is even with atomic bombs and the blood diamonds and arms dealing. Yeah no doubt.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Odd that you are putting the burden of proof on me instead of yourself.I told you how to witness it for yourself.No, capitalism creates wealth. If it redistributed wealth, America would not be what it is today.Wealth comes from new resources. Capitalism works by trading existing resources. Therefore in a capitalist society, the wealthy and the middle class obtain their wealth at the cost of a lower class.This is basically what we call a zero-sum gain.The Industrial Resolution was our developing nation period. We are not developing nation because over time we accumulated wealth and capital through education and development of skills and talents. These developing nations are at the very same crossroads as we were 150 years ago.Wealth doesn't come from nothing. You're just describing how one makes a person better at acquiring wealth, not creating it. The body which makes up wealth are limited resources that are hard to find. This is in the form of crude oils, minerals, metals, and so on. This forms the core of wealth. A capitalist entrepreneur simply takes these resources and makes something that can be exchanged for more wealth than invested in creation.What is so difficult to understand that development in the accumulation of skills and talents. Same skill set, drastically different salaries. It's an easy to reach conclusion.When the numbers are added up, I am sure the number killed by Mao Ze-Dong of 50 to 80 million and 23 million killed by Joseph Stalin equaling 73 to 103 million is even with atomic bombs and the blood diamonds and arms dealing. Yeah no doubt.Change of topic? We're not discussing quantity, just the plain and simple fact that democratic capitalist societies engage in genocide, and support states that do.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I told you how to witness it for yourself.I am not going to waste my time.This is basically what we call a zero-sum gain.Many economic situations don't involve zero sum because valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated, which any can be a net gain or loss. Assuming the counterparties are act in a rational matter, any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it is receiving as being at least fractionally more valuable than the goods it is delivering. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties enough above the zero-sum such that each party can overcome its transaction costs.e.g. Absolute advantage, Comparative advantage & Free tradeFactors of Production*Labor, Capital, Human Capital, Land and EntrepreneurshipSame skill set, drastically different salaries. It's an easy to reach conclusion.Different economies with different set of supply and demand. Logical ConclusionChange of topic?Yeah, Ok, way to look that I was off base.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I am not going to waste my time.Then you'll remain ignorant.Many economic situations don't involve zero sum because valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated, which any can be a net gain or loss. Assuming the counterparties are act in a rational matter, any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it is receiving as being at least fractionally more valuable than the goods it is delivering. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties enough above the zero-sum such that each party can overcome its transaction costs.I was discussing resources, not profits, also I said "basically" because there are instances where can you can find more resources.Resources, however, are always limited no matter the economy so you can either divide them up evenly, or have unequal distribution. If you divide them evenly there will be a loss of living quality felt by many. If you have uneven distribution, a small portion of the world will live in luxury as the rest has even fewer resources.Economics just clouds this simple fact, by introducing value, exchange rates, bubbles, etc.Different economies with different set of supply and demand. Logical ConclusionThey are capitalist democracies. They have the same amount of supply and demand relative to ours. What's different? No minimum wage, less safety regulation. Less government oversight. Also, the economies are poorer because the wealthy nations outsource jobs to them, using their cheap labour and skills so they can have high profit margins in goods sold over here. The net result is foreign powers making a killing off of weak labour laws, and serving as a barrier to social improvement.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Then you'll remain ignorant.Yeah, OK.Resources, however, are always limited no matter the economy so you can either divide them up evenly, or have unequal distribution.That we call absolute advantage as already mentioned.They are capitalist democracies. They have the same amount of supply and demand relative to ours.Still Wrong. GDP measures the different scale of economies among how resources are distributed such as GDP per capita.The economies are poorer because the wealthy nations outsource jobs to them, using their cheap labour and skills so they can have high profit margins in goods sold over here. Wrong Again. The outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas is part of an economic movement that promises a better life, indeed, a new beginning for many people in developing countries. It gives technologically savvy young people in countries like India livelihoods that move them into the ranks of the middle class