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

I would like to point out here, that in my post I was referring to the philosophical basis of socialism and capitalism. You may be correct to point out the real-world results of each system, which unfortunately are pretty undeniable; However, I would note that we haven't experimented with socialism nearly as long as we have experimented with capitalism. The failure of most socialist societies has had more to do with how power is concentrated and less with how wealth is distributed.Capitalism encourages competition in the hopes of personal monetary gain. Whether or not this can successfully drive an economy is not what bothers me about it. I think humans do best and feel most fulfilled as members of an inclusive society. Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers. Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.Indeed. We are on the road to a mixed economy, like that of Sweden and other European countries. I think this will be more beneficial than a strict implementation of either economic system.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers. Not always. There are only losers when there are people who do not produce.The winners are those who produce wealth to trade (value for value). The losers are those who do not. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. When 2 people trade, they are both winners, because they each traded something they valued less, for something they valued more. If not, they would not trade.Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.Voluntary sharing is good, and foments goodwill. Socialism isn't about voluntary sharing. It is about forced sharing. Forced sharing foments resentment. Let's say you studied hard for a class and got an A. Your classmate goofed off, and got a D. She complains to the teacher. The teacher decides that she wasn't as smart as you, and you didn't need an A to do well, so he lowers your score to a B (still good) and raises the dufus's score to a C. How do you feel about the other student?How do you feel about the teacher?What is your incentive to study hard for the next class?--------------Let's say that you worked all summer and saved up for a car.Now let's say that your parents tell you you must ferry your younger sister around, as much as you drive for yourself, because it isn't fair that she doesn't have a car.Within the context of this situation:How do you feel about your sister?Your parents?Saving up for that 4-wheeler you wanted?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

The effect of socialism is poverty.Socialism seeks to eradicate poverty. Capitalism encourages poverty. This cannot be denied.The effect of capitalism is a higher standard of living for everyone in the society.A higher standard for some, but not all.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Socialism seeks to eradicate poverty. Capitalism encourages poverty. This cannot be denied.I deny it, as does reality. Everywhere there is more economic freedom, there is greater prosperity.A higher standard for some, but not all.The poorest people in the US, even running on what is left of the capitalist system, is higher than that of countries with a greater degree of central planning (socialism) in the economy.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression. Socialism is true economic freedom. The workers control their work place. On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression.Define economic oppression. What pollutes the capitalism?How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

It might be instructive to ask why the poor in America have more wealth than the average individual in the developing world. One possible answer to this is that America has managed to export its brand of cut-throat capitalism to the rest of the world. On the world stage, the U.S. is the bourgeois, and the developing world is the proletariat, who often quite literally work at subsistence wage to create wealth for U.S. Corporations.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Define economic oppression.Economic oppression is the subservience of the poor to the gentry; although existing throughout all economic systems, it is most prevalent in unregulated Capitalism where wealth and resources are able to be concentrated into a few hands. What pollutes the capitalism?Capitalism is polluted by the concentration of wealth and resources into too few hands, leaving large swaths of the population without enough to get by. In well-regulated capitalism, this is deterred by regulations (especially anti-trust legislation). How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?In truth, the pollution and the oppression are the same thing; concentration of wealth and resources.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

it is most prevalent in unregulated Capitalism where wealth and resources are able to be concentrated into a few hands.What is the mechanism whereby resources are concentrated?In well-regulated capitalism, this is deterred by regulations (especially anti-trust legislation). Name a situation where an anti-trust case was brought against a business that was harming the consumer (not competitors).Name a case where a harmful (to the consumer) monopoly was gained or maintained without the help of government "regulations".
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

What is the mechanism whereby resources are concentrated?Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.Name a situation where an anti-trust case was brought against a business that was harming the consumer (not competitors).Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent. Apple is doing much the same thing, currently.Name a case where a harmful (to the consumer) monopoly was gained or maintained without the help of government "regulations".Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none. However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.Unlimited? or just large?If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent. Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property". How did they ensure no competition?I use Linux. My friends use Mac. Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none.I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil. They increased their efficiency, lowering prices, bringing them down so everyone could afford their products. Their competitors petitioned to have it broken up as a monopoly. At the time of their break up, they had no fewer than 150 competitors. There has never been a case where a harmful monopoly was successfully gained or maintained, in a free market. Even before the "anti-trust" laws.The nature of free market capitalism makes it almost impossible.However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government."certain goods and services" compete with all other goods and services, for the money of the consumer.If you want to know why money in the US seems to flow toward the richest (and it does) look no farther than the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system, enforced by our government. This is not capitalism. It is government interference in the economy, through the most prevalent economic good: the medium of exchange.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Unlimited? or just large?If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property". Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/845426?uid=3739680&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101554679481 How did they ensure no competition? Intel Vice President Steven McGeady said Microsoft hopes to " hopes to 'embrace, extend and extinguish' competition by substituting the company's proprietary software for the public-domain, open technologies that have driven the frenetic growth of the Internet."I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil.If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now. Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government.What do you constitute as help from the government? It seems to me you define it as "allowing a business to exist at all," but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.This is an assertion, not evidence. By what mechanism would this happen?Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.Yup, nobody's perfect. ;)hopes toHopes to and being able to do so are different.Ibm hoped to extinguish competition with microchannel, back in the 80s, too. Didn't happen. People tend to use what is most useful. Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now.  Another assertion. What is your evidence?Most anti-trust legislation is brought, not because the company is gouging consumers, but because it is being more efficient than jealous competitors.http://mises.org/daily/2694What do you constitute as help from the government?Lobbying for special laws or regulations to keep competitors out of the market. An example would be the AMA, monopoly on medical school certification, and use of the medicare codes. Oil company and green energy company subsidies are also included, as are farm subsidies. The companies that rate bonds (whose names are written into law as the "official" rating agencies to comply with some regulations), licensing for crap that shouldn't need a license, like interior decorating, all keep competition out of the market.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

boogle and copycat, you guys might like this. I was doing some research on antitrust laws while reading your debate and came across this little tidbit on wikipedia.One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.How do you like that? The law created after public outcry against huge corporate trusts was first used to break up a union run by America's most famous socialist. Truth really is stranger than fiction.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.Good info. Thanks. :)
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

This is an assertion, not evidence. This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice. Hopes to and being able to do so are different. So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright? Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.And by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers, Microsoft gained a near omnipresence in the world. Other software competitors have only recovered in the past decade.Apple is a great example. They weren’t doing wonderfully before the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, and now they boarder on a monopoly themselves. Allowing competitors to gain greater exposure in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance. Another assertion. What is your evidence?I’ll admit that is an assertion, but I base it on an extrapolation of Standard’s market dominance, coupled with an extrapolation of the decline of their competitors sustainability.I agree with you on lobbying and most subsidies. But Medicare Reimbursement codes only apply to Medicare patients and Usual and Customary rates for provider reimbursement. And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance. Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools. http://mises.org/daily/1547
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Competition always comes back.The initial lower prices undermined smaller businesses, making it virtually impossible to establish any useful market presence. Competition comes back, and n one has ever successfully kept a market, due to Federal intervention. This is the case in Standard & Microsoft.Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product. state governments have the only authority to license.Then, it's small governments fault! gasp
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product. evidence?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Also, your mises.org sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense. With courses in "Atlas Shrugged", "Anarcho-Capitalism", and one entitled "Libertarian Ethics", it's clear this is another neocon money mill preying on those who are terrified of their own Government; terrified into thinking they are being cheated, robbed, and oppressed by the very institution that has led this country to its prosperity.Unless, you'd prefer America to be more like Medieval Iceland.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Also, your mises.org sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense.Then refute the logic. Give examples of where it has failed, without interference.I'll give you a topic:The Austrian business cycle theory.http://mises.org/daily/672
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Apple is doing much the same thing, currently.Redacted.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production. Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others. These people gain more and more money and put down competition. They end up with the vast majority of power. The capitalistic social pyramid is similarly to the food pyramid in nature. These people then control all means of production and attempt to use debt as a means to control the population.The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.They don't do better than those in Sweden :)
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production. Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others.So, they should be punished for their ability?These people gain more and more money and put down competition.By satisfying the demands of the consumer, more efficiently than the competitor.They end up with the vast majority of power.What sort of power?Political? Keep government out of the market and this is not a problem.Economic? As long as they are satisfying the needs of the consumer, the most efficiently, this is a boon for the consumer. If they stop giving value for value, they invite competitors (both in their field, and substitutes for their product) to gain market share. They don't do better than those in Sweden :)Actually, they do.*"Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."( http://mises.org/daily/955 )More links: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.This is what it should be, but that is easier said than done. When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.So, they should be punished for their ability?Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)What sort of power?Most certainly economic power, but political power can be bought.And on Sweden, I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.That's what unions are for. But unions should have no special bargaining privileges granted by government. They should be more like "employment insurance".Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property. Without theft or fraud, how can these rights be infringed upon?Most certainly economic power,To maintain economic power, one must continue to satisfy the demands of the consumer. political power can be bought.Again, this would require government interference in the market. This is not capitalism, it is rent-seeking. I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.Sacrifice is a noble thing, so long as it is someone else who is doing it. ;)
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property.This is opinionated. Economic rights are very extensive, and and can very greatly. Influence in means of production should be included.To maintain economic power, one must continue to satisfy the demands of the consumer.Absolutely true. That is why there is manufactured demand.Again, this would require government interference in the market. This is not capitalism, it is rent-seeking This is capitalism as it stands today.Sacrifice is a noble thing, so long as it is someone else who is doing it. ;)I live in Canada. What you call sacrifice, we call mutual assistance.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

This is opinionated. Economic rights are very extensive, and and can very greatly. Influence in means of production should be included.This is no less opinionated. My list of rights do not have to be supplied by the action or labor of others, do yours? If others must labor to supply your rights, that means you have a right to the labor of others. If this is true, then others have the right to your labor. If we all have equal rights, then each has a right to an equal share of everyone's labor, and the net gain in the right to the labor of others is zero. Why not just skip the middle man and agree that we only have a right to our own labor, and that no other may enslave us?Each has influence in the means of production to the degree that he produces goods or services for trade. This keeps loafers from influencing things to which they have not contributed. Think of it like sharing a cab with someone who is broke. If they don't contribute to the fare, they should not decide where the cab goes.I live in Canada. What you call sacrifice, we call mutual assistance.If you can't opt out, it isn't "mutual assistance", it is legal robbery.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.Source: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?