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

Soviet equestria is a joke. No seriously it was created as a joke. The equestria in the show most closely resembles a theocracy with a capitalist economy. This is shown by the fact that the rulers are seen as gods. And that privet ownership of both business and property is common in fact film and flam could be described as free enterprise antruponures.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.-Winston Churchll A very wiseman indeed.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

And, sixty years later, we see britain and the rest of europe, for the most part, surviving on a growing socialist ideal.Wisdom is not dictated by what you say, but the way you say it.He was speaking out politically, against the obvious threat of the National Socialists. When the Nazis were growing in power, of COURSE he would say that socialism can't work and is against freedom.If he'd come out to the British people and said "You know, in theory, socialism makes the world a better place." there would have been more Nazi sympathizers in Britain. They were fighting a war, of COURSE they denounced the other side. -_- love it when people take things out of historical context.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

And, sixty years later, we see britain and the rest of europe, for the most part, surviving on a growing socialist ideal.The extent to which a nation thrives, not just survives, correlates with the extent to which it adopts capitalistic policies. China isn't a communist nation, it is increasingly capitalistic, which is why it is on the rise. It's also why they lectured the US on Capitalistic methods. As Capitalistic nations adopt Socialism, they economically decline. It happens every time though not all at once. The fact that it happens slowly is the reason socialists always look and say "see? it's working!"...No it isn't.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Some forms of socialism mean the lack of authority established by police or other violence. The Spanish revolution is an example of this.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

My main problem with socialism is that its only 2 degrees right of full on communism government control hurts the abilities of companies to operate efficiently as dose bringing democracy into the office it's not nessisary because if you don't like your job you can just quit unlike governments. Not to mention haw cumbersome socialist programs are welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, these are all examples of overfunded underperforming socialist programs that are dragging our country deeper and deeper int to debt and making our taxes increase more and more. Socialism give the government too much power and control over the economy and by extension society. So bottom line is a capitalist is some one who wants to be employed a socialist is some one who wants to be enslaved
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

employment IS slavery.You work for less money than your work is worth so your employer can make a profit.Also, so, somebody who works minimum wage and has to pay bills and rent, can quit their job if they don't like it? No, they can't. They lose their home, they lose their livelihoods because they didn't want to do something they didn't like. Now doesn't that sound like slavery? Oh, and did i mention being perpetually underpaid? Oh yes, i think i did.Oh and let's talk about minimum wage.Where would that be without unions (democracy in the workplace) and socialist laws.Oh yes, right.NON EXISTENT.We'd be working for pennies because the rich don't care about the poor. Human procreate, there will always be workers, why should the ones who have all the luxuries care if a few die of starvation every couple weeks. They didn't before those laws came into place and they still wouldn't, if the laws didn't exist.If we abolished those laws tomorrow, you can bet your next rent payment isn't being made, you won't have groceries and you won't get to debate with us anymore because your wages would drop from 10.50 an hour (where I live) to all of 50c, the wage of asian child labourers. but guess what, after 8 hours of work a day, you come home with four dollars. Minus taxes? 3 dollars. what good meal could you provide for your family while you paid your housing bills on that wage.Capitalism, if left unchecked, takes advantage of the worker if not by definition, then in practice.Socialism and by extention, communism empowers the worker by making them an integral part of the means of production. They are no longer a tool, they are a partner.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Capitalism is good for those who can benefit from it, but creates poverty for those who don't. People talk freedom of market, but what good is that freedom if one can't afford it. If their argument is that (everyone) can make it by not being lazy then they contradicted themselves because that's socialism. Capitalism is a perpetual big fish eat smaller fish until smaller fish says no more, that's how capitalism will always lead to civil strife in any society where one gains the most. Greed perpetuates greed.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism has historically done more for the poverty problem than any other system. The poor in the US are much better off than the poor in other nations. There is no contradiction in the idea that hard work pays off, the difference is in whom decides who will work where and for how much. If you take Socialism to its logical conclusion, you will have no civil upheaval because all the poor will be under the iron fist of the planners.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Jesus Christ you waffle on a bit, don't you? Many leftists, such as left-libertarian Susan Webber at Naked Capitalism, argue that we must work in order to live and that therefore work is coercive. If you must do X to live, then surely whoever controls your ability to do X is coercing you.The problem with this argument is that the state of nature is not a Rousseauian paradise, but a brutal place where most die. The state of nature involves poverty and endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive. The workday is every waking moment, and the pay is little more than an occasional meal.So, in other words, you agree with Susan Webber, but are merely too stupid to understand that we are part of nature too, and have evolved past killing and eating each other to survive? You really are quite the thickie, aren't you? Yes, in nature lions hunt gazelles, therefore unnecessary poverty and suffering are a good idea? I don't think so. You fail to understand that we are the ones who dictate how human society is run and managed, not some otherworldly force you call nature.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

You should really do your research before disputing someone's statement. First off, you automatically and falsely assumed that what I meant by "endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive" was to kill other humans: and have evolved past killing and eating each other to survive Second, you again automatically and falsely assumed what "state of nature" meant: but are merely too stupid to understand that we are part of nature tooThe state of nature as defined by Oxford Dictionary is: "The state of human beings outside civil society". So yes, humans have evolved. Humans eating other humans would not happen unless someone cannot find any other type of food but without any of the modern conveniences of today, they would have to revert back to how they used to live. which would be an endless drudgery to catch, kill, and cook whatever food one can to stay alive (not necessarily including humans, as you assumed). So the workday would be every waking moment, and the pay would be little more than an occasional meal.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is superior to any other economic system. When it is the people calling the shots it always works out better than the government having control. The people can decide what to do for their business and the rest of the population can decide whether or not they will support it by buying their product or service. It is a beautiful system.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

This way the true needs of the people are met through the people instead of what the government deems as the needs of the people being met by the government.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I am on the capitalist side I have know idea why it says socialist under the clarified portion.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

people (lazy people) like to rant on about how capitalism is unfair and socialism makes everyone equal. but hears the problem with those arguments as i see them. in a capitalist society you are free to persue what ever carrer you chose and reep the benifits of your labore you get what you earn. and as for the whole equlization factore behind socialism it dose make veryone equal that is true but it dose that by makeing everyone slaves you see a socialist system requires a large amount of government controle in order to acomplish its goals and very offten gives way to full on comunisam wich is one of the most oppresive forms of government yet invented.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You're wrong. When Capitalists rule Communist states (i.e. Joseph Stalin) Communism can not work. When a true COMMUNIST rules a communist state, it is the last step before true social freedom. You see, a communist government is made to be the last staging area for a completely free gift economy, what some refer to as a social utopia. A place where anyone can do anything. Artists make art, Doctors help people, Mechanics fix machines. Believe it or not, most "lazy people" who despise capitalism only see the fundamental flaws of the system and see the ultimate irrelevance of their contributions to a capitalist society. You can not put others before yourself, as any civilized person's moral code states, and be successful in a capitalist state. at some point, no matter your intentions, you WILL have to ruin someone else's chances of pursuing their goals. They say it's lonely at the top, but that is because you have to put yourself up there on a pyramid of your peers.You see capitalism as "free" because you've been conditioned to believe it. Capitalism is ruled by Big Business and Big Business is oppressive. You may not see it on the television, but every day, somebody, somewhere in a capitalist state had their dreams ruined because someone else took advantage of them to further their own cause.Capitalism prefers the "I" to the "we"The fact of the matter is, a man only has limited time on this planet to make a difference.A man who dies poor and a man who dies rich always have something in common, they're both dead and alone.Capitalism values the dollar sign over personal discovery and integrity. The more dollars you have, the more amoral you can be, simply because you had to be that amoral to get all of that money.You see, humanity started out with a gift economy and eventually, we will end up back in one. as with all things in the universe, it is a cycle.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"capitalism prefers the I to the we" and communism prefers the government to every thing els. Think of it this way Capitalism is a bunch of people screwing each other over to get to the top. Where as Communism is on man screwing the entire country over to get to the top. Look at every communist regime that has ever existed. The Bolsheviks ( later called the soviets) in Russia, the "People's" republic of china, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, castro and Che and there murderous band of utopeits in Cuba, and of course who can for get that ever happy paradise known as north Korea. Tell me has there ever been a communist regime that came to power and DIDN'T immedeitly commit mass genocide?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

None of these regimes stayed true to the basic ideals of communism. The people who ruled those countries saw themselves as better than their constituents. A true ruler can not believe that and communism relies on the ruler to be for the people. When a communist state's ruler stops being for the people, the state, for all intents and purposes, ceases to be communist, regardless of what they call themselves.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Well you can sit there and spout rhetoric all you like but I base my opinions on what I KNOW and on what history has shown us time and time again. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Well, if we're just going off of what we know, why don't I say this:More mass genocides have been incurred by people who want more money and power than others, than there have been mass genocides by false communists.The want for money and power from the money is a purely capitalistic ideal, so I'm forced to believe that more people on this earth have been killed due to the capitalist system we cling so hard to.So... "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."by the way, i already recognized the failures of previous communist regimes and also stated the reason they failed. I obviously haven't ignored MY political ideology's history. But, I can safely bet that you did.So, while you're ignoring your history, i hope you can breathe blood, because we'll all be drowning in it.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Lastly, if socialism is so very wrong, why do people have a base need to help other people.Come on, don't you feel good for helping someone out? Of course you do.A socialist society is a society of people helping other peopleNo matter how much you like having more money than other people, it's not going to last. And remember, rich or poor, we're all the same in the eyes of death.So, would you rather be remembered for centuries as someone who helped make the world a better place, or be a footnote in the book of things that don't matter anymore?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Money and power are not Capitalist creations, they are natural outgrowths from humanity. Money and power have always been there, Capitalism is fairly recent. To say that Socialism hasn't ever really been tried ignores that Capitalism hasn't either. But the extent to which Capitalism is adopted is the extent to which a nation prospers. Look at how China and India are rising. Look at Estonia and Singapore and Hong Kong.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

The Bolsheviks ( later called the soviets)A Soviet is a workers council. A Bolshevik was a Soviet Revolutionary.Khmer Rouge in CambodiaThey were not Socialist, and they were supported by the US. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to remove the murderous regime of Pol Pot and went to war with China over removing the KR
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I think you've got you history wrong comrade pol pot was,an admitted communist he tried to wipe out intellectuals, skilled labor, and all traces of western (capitalist) society among other things. He had a really long kill list
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

happy paradise known as north KoreaNorth Korea is not even Communist, they are Juchie. Also, we are discussing Socialism, not Communism. They are NOT the same thing.Tell me has there ever been a communist regime that came to power and DIDN'T immediately commit mass genocideSFR Yugoslavia. P.S. I don't condone Communism, it cannot work. And is Capitalism any better??
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Oh and I forgot north Vietnam nice folks those Vietcong especially.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

when you are are in socialism means are of production are equally shared so hard work of others will go to waste
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is the way to go, but there should be more opportunities for impoverished children. There needs to be ways to get everyone a high quality education in America which we currently don't have. People should have equal opportunities but the right to choose what should be done during their lifetime.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I'm 57 years old. We were taught in HS that socialism is the stepping stone to communism. This needs to be taught in schools today.Remember USSR stands for United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism, no ideals but a fact of life. Some people are smarter, faster and better than others and they will prosper but while they do, they need the help of others and that increases employment but in Socialism the state does not allow that but loves to control everything and hates the idea of flat tax. Socialistic states only succeed in countries where almost everyone is educated and has a good background. ex. Switzerland.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

To be fair, Switzerland is successful not because of educated socialists, but because of a huge capitalistic international banking industry that is centered there.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Note: Short post explanation--can be expanded upon laterOne of the main problems with Socialism is that it is founded on an idea which is false--namely, that there are legions of super-compassionate people out there always trying to look out for one another. Overwhelmingly, the "compassion" is a veneer to cover envy, jealousy, hatred of the successful, self-loathing, etc. Then, you are often expecting others to make it their mission to "save"/"help" people that are not seriously trying to help themselves, and would gladly/eagerly f*ck you over if given the opportunity (i.e. "I scratch your back but you never scratch mine").Capitalism has built into the idea that there are various types of people in the world--as well as a philosophy of 'good & evil' that tugs at humanities core (inside all of us). To visualize; imagine a mountain that scales so high up the summit is out of view. Various groups emerge, by nature; (a) Those who stay on the ground (b) people who climb at a leisurely pace (c) people who climb as fast and high as possible. Inside each camp, there are (1) fans, who cheer on and encourage those climbing up (2) the "foot pullers", who discourage and try to knock them off 'the path'. "Foot pullers" is where the problem comes in, and there are many different strategies to go about it. (i) the direct approach (ii) "concern" for the others safety. Capitalism is founded on the idea of the imagery provided--which I think is a much more accurate view of "human nature". Not that 'Capitalism' is necessarily the optimal route/solution, indefinitely--though it is superior to forcing "mountain climbers/sprinters" etc. to come back down to a "safe" height, for the sake of those who deeply, 'secretly' hope that they will fall to their death, rather than "concern for everyone's safety".
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

One of the main problems with Socialism is that it is founded on an idea which is false--namely, that there are legions of super-compassionate people out there always trying to look out for one another.Obviously you know so little about socialism that you somehow believe it's a theory of psychology instead of a theory of economics. Your straw man argumentation is boring and stupid because your understanding of what socialism is could probably be written on the back of a stamp.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

@ConservanaziBy all means, enlighten me.Also, where do you think you fall in that vision?
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I will like someone, ANYONE, to tell me Socialism works. Any country. Name it.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I don't have to. i know, what my rights are. i have the right to live, and i need healthcare, to live. my body, my choice.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Socialism

This is a quote from 1930, spoken by a rising german politician called Adolf Hitler.Who just happened to be the biggest liar in political history. Well, until idiots like you emerged that is.In 1930, the contention that fascism had emerged out of socialism was accepted across the board.What a spectacularly massive falsehood. Your claim is not merely false: it is absolutely preposterous. It was completely understood that Adolf Hitler was lying in order to appeal to Communist voters who he believed -- correctly -- could help win the Nazis power if enough of them believed his lies about having socialist sympathies. See:-I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups."Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"(Interview with The Guardian, George Sylvester Viereck, 1923)https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/ 2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1 Of course, there are various other factors besides this which contribute in illustrating that you have an understanding of history which is literally arse-end backwards, including -- though not exclusively -- the fact that Hitler had all the left wingers in his party murdered.
Debate: Socialism vs. Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

What a spectacularly massive falsehood. Your claim is not merely false: it is absolutely preposterous. It was completely understood that Adolf Hitler was lying in order to appeal to Communist voters who he believed -- correctly -- could help win the Nazis power if enough of them believed his lies about having socialist sympathies.How can you be so excessively incompetent that you completely misunderstand that the man who said the word 'communism' certainly wasn't a socialist? The fact that Hitler was vocal about his contempt for 'socialists', and all the people that said so, is all the evidence you need to start beating yourself on the head. He was clear that he wanted to be in control of the businesses that he wanted and believed that the businesses that the public had were run too much by speculators who were taking advantage of the public's losses. All the effects that you attribute to socialism, such as the super-sized markets and huge amounts of overheads that we now witness every day in banking, supermarkets, and utility businesses; these are highly a result of nothing more than greed and the demand to make money out of other people's problems. You do not see any governments enforcing fair competition in these sectors, do you? It just comes down to good people with ethics and morals, and making sacrifices where necessary for the common good.Of course, there are various other factors besides this which contribute in illustrating that you have an understanding of history which is literally arse-end backwards, including -- though not exclusively -- the fact that Hitler had all the left wingers in his party murdered.dumb much...? Are you seriously suggesting that 33 million men, women and children were murdered at the hands of a man who only killed 'Left wingers'? again, I argue that none of the left wingers were murdered, so don't begin to tell me about the murders of the right wingers. All the deaths that occured were deaths due to horrific wars fought by nazis over territory. And had the left remained in power, history would have been different in many more aspects other than left wingers being killed.