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

capitalism, must be regulated or else it destroys the free market. Monopolies naturally develop and once that happens opportunity is nill for the vast majority of people. Democracy can act as a type of limited check against capitalism, so that competition still stays in the market, working conditions are good, etc. capitalism is naturally anti-democratic. It concentrates power, both economic and political in the hands of the wealthy. Democracy can use regulated capitalism as a tool, but its like keeping a nasty beast of a dog that might turn and bite you(if not maul) if you ever let it off its leash.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Not Compatible

I feel as though you yourself have misunderstood a little. Money=power in any type of modern day political/socio-economic system so your statement that Capitalism concentrates power to the rich isn't really valid. Moreover in my opinion, Capitalism simply gives everyone the  opportunity to become rich through their personal hard-work and dedication, and thus capitalism can work in correspondence with democracy.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

capitalism, must be regulated or else it destroys the free market. Monopolies naturally develop and once that happens opportunity is nill for the vast majority of people. Democracy can act as a type of limited check against capitalism, so that competition still stays in the market, working conditions are good, etc. capitalism is naturally anti-democratic. Democracy can use regulated capitalism as a tool, but its like keeping a nasty beast of a dog that might turn and bite you(if not maul) if you ever let it off its leash.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Greed is present in no matter what economic system either capitalism or socialism. At least in capitalism, it is concentrated in individuals instead of government or co-ops.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Desire is present in any economic system, is it best to have a few wealthy men with the power to make their desires reality, and the rest of society with just the power to get by if even that, or is it better to have power distributed such that the common desires of all the people can be attained, things like bread, water, air conditioning/heat, good working conditions, shoes, clean air, education, etc?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Under the current system of capitalism, is bread, water, air conditioning/heat, good working conditions, shoes, clean air, education not all common desires already distributed?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

it is that way only because of democratic processes, without which the workers and people would have no voice and no power.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

I like voting.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Democracy

You cannot debate on which is better due to the fact the capitalism is an economical system and democracy is governmental system. People these days -__-
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Democracy

If we characterize Democracy and Capitalism as enemies, must we assume that one must defeat the other? Such a defeat would be comparable to stopping a high-speed train with a concrete wall. In order for our Society to continue to thrive, we must agree on a common interest shared by the conflicting ideologies of Democracy and Capitalism and build our future through a cooperative effort that satisfies the needs of both. Otherwise, we are, as many have characterized, an out of control herd stampeding toward a cliff. Our downfall will come from our own arrogance, ignorance and indifference.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Democracy

A democracy is a system of government while capitalism is an economic system and they are like oil and water. Capitalism puts corporate profits above all else and abhors democratic decisions or controls that impede increasing profits. Capitalism aims at reducing workers compensation in favor of higher profits and abhors unions. Slavery is a goal of capitalism. While capitalists say they favor a free market, they strive for monopolies and as they continue to swallow up smaller corporations there is not where to go but implosion.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Well, despite this debate being retarded, I will say that Liberty is more important than popular opinion.This is why we have a Constitution in the United States; so that Liberty can not be voted out by the Majority. Democracy is a good system for issues that are not a question on individual rights, but for issues like private property and civil liberties, there shouldn't be a populist decision. The decision should be natural: Liberty comes first.but they are perfectly compatible and basically it's how it's always been. even back during the City-State democracies of the Greek times. Merchants sold their goods and consumers had choice. And, of course, the big issue of Communist Dictatorships vs. Capitalist Democracies when the USA and USSR were at a rivalry. The USA has always been Capitalist. Over time, regulation started to grow majorly once the Industrial Revolution took place. Before, Capital was farm land, saloons and the occasional oil tycoon. Once work became a 9-5 thing and life was becoming easier (people didn't have to worry about dying if they didn't water their crops during the Spring), the working class decided to raise the issue of worker's rights (since many even believed that slaves were treated better than workers). So laws were passed, and then FDR comes along during a Depression. He puts in laws that make government even larger and more involved with business regulation, and even though it technically didn't work, the War helped boost the economy, so everyone thought that it did. So that's how it's been since.Are we still Capitalist? Compared to the rest of the world, we are very Capitalist. All we have, really, is Ireland, Israel, Australia and Japan left to back us on Capitalism. The rest of the world is either Fascist, Socialist, Social Democracy, Communist or even Hierarchy/Monarchy. Or just some shitass Dictator who has his own crazy laws (like Iran).But America, one of the first countries to bring Democracy back into Modern Civilizations (let's face it, they made it popular again, no matter what you skeptics might think on the other developing countries in Democracy) has been very Capitalist for years.What does this all say? That your debate is stupid and doesn't work. Capitalism can work with Democracy.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Cuntface, you've got millions of facts wrong. But who cares what you think - you'd rather have people running around crazed up on drugs raping and killing each other than give up your fucking liberties (lmao!)90% of your post isn't even relevant to the question. All you've got is a rant about how deregulation is good (even though the global economic meltdown proves it's bad) and that regulation is bad (even though it's been the real reason for America's economic advancement) and how you're capitalist etc.Capitalism is the hoarding of power in the hands of 1% of America's population v.s democracy which is the distribution of power into 100% of America's population
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

"democracy which is the distribution of power into 100% of America's population"------------- really just 51%
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Right, because making drugs illegal has helped so much in stopping addiction.Once we accept that drugs can never be stopped, we can effectively help people even better. But as long as we pretend that we can stop drug use with unnecessary legislation, addiction and crime will always be rampant.To you Socialists, you seem to forget that freedom is what keeps us safe in the end. A hostile government keeps people in the dark, making it unsafe for everyone else.Capitalism is merely the use of capital in order to extend business. Nothing in the definition says that it's Corporatism (which is actually against libertarianism and capitalism).
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Right, because making drugs illegal has helped so much in stopping addiction.Legalising it would obviously help!To you Socialists, you seem to forget that freedom is what keeps us safe in the end. A hostile government keeps people in the dark, making it unsafe for everyone else.LOL. Scared of the government huh? How many governments in history have been hostile, compared to those who have not been hostile? Your fear of the government is completely baseless.Capitalism is merely the use of capital in order to extend business. Nothing in the definition says that it's Corporatism (which is actually against libertarianism and capitalism).Who said I've got anything against with corporatism?You've got your definition of capitalism wrong. There's so much more to it, you're focusing on a small non-essential part of it.Capitalism will eventually lead to an aristrocat or big brother (similar to equilibrium) or worse. None of the outcomes I can think of are good. Democracy however remains a force that prevents this.As I've said before, I enjoy listening to your views - I find it amazing people believe the things you do and aren't locked away somewhere. But your arguments are nearly always wrong. You really don't know how the world works. You've voiced your opinion. Capitalism to you is more important than democracy.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Making them legal would make it easier for users to get help. People will be able to learn to properly balance their substance since when it's legal, it will technically be alright to teach people how to do drugs properly. DARE programs don't teach children how to not OD, they just tell kids "drugs are bad and you'll die". when kids realize that DARE was lying to them, they do a shit load of drugs not realizing their limits. Drugs being illegal kills 10x more than what it would if it were legal (less ODs and less gang violence).Most governments have been hostile. What kind of history reinventing have you been brainwashed with? People complain about the United States and the Patriot Act (which is bad, don't get me wrong); so imagine all the other shit that civilians went through before the 1700s. People were executed for what they said; and that was normal. Even today, most Middle Eastern countries execute their citizens for their ideology. The South American governments are corrupt. Africa is torn between warring tribes and governments that take the side of one of the militias. Countries of the Orient are split between good governments and Communist/Fascist Dictatorships.The West has to deal with some shit, and if you don't find it hostile, fine. But the rest of the world is fucked up STILL. And in the past 2000 years, government has been very hostile.As for Capitalism, you still do not seem to know what Capitalism is. My definition is the most essential part of Capitalism. It's not Capitalism if it does not include:use of Capitalismopportunity for free tradethat's it. Capitalism can not lead to Big Brother. Big Brother is the government watching over us. Equilibrium is based off of 1984. You seem to know nothing about Capitalism or Big Brother. Do more studying, please.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Most governments have been hostileYou what son?? What planet have you been living on?So please, oh enlightened one.. what would a completely free market lead to? Apart from my realistic apocolyptic prophecies?Big brother any form of power watching over you - not just the government.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Well, I never used Cato, I used reports coming in from Portugal, but w/e. It's true, people who support decriminalization will find a way to show that it works as for people who don't want it will find ways to show that it doesn't work.So instead of all the speculation, it's more important to focus on civil liberties and the fact that the war on drugs has done far more harm than drugs themselves.As for Capitalism, I have no problem with saying "breaking contract should be illegal" because Capitalism does not have to equate anarchy. Cheating and lying would breach contract for the most part, as for false advertising and unsafe products with no warnings, it should also be illegal. But that's based more on common sense regulation than just any old regulation. If one man sells an unsafe product to someone else without warning, he is also liable (not just businesses). But competition and self-interest is what gets us the best of the best and what gets the consumer the best product. If we all of a sudden turn business into a government approved system, we could say goodbye to Microsoft, Apple, and Starbucks. Let's face it, no one truly needs what they're providing, so why let greedy business compete to take over their markets?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Your experience of more bad than good in the drug world come from a world where drugs are illegal. I'm assuming, at least. If you live in a place where drugs are destroying people's lives AND they're legal, please correct me.And I don't believe that I have all the answers when it comes to drugs, but I also believe that law makers don't either. I wish to do drugs on occasion and I believe that it should be my choice, not the government's. My opinion is on freedom of choice, not based on some kind of personal experience.With capitalism, I referred to regulation that made deception a crime because it is a breach of verbal contract. If you promise one thing but have no intention in fulfilling that promise, you are breaching a verbal contract (which has to do with advertisement and misinformation on unsafe products). These things should be illegal based on contract, not standard regulation that we see with legislation that goes directly after business. As for poverty, you're right, it has been around forever. And guess what, it was around when government was powerful and in complete control of the economy, and it was around when government wasn't that involved... I see that you haven't blamed Capitalism for poverty, and that's a good start. But demanding that Capitalism either cure poverty or be stopped is kind of overboard. I guess since AIDS hasn't been cured yet, it's another example of why Capitalism has failed. We also haven't cured death or have created a phone cord that doesn't tangle up, so I guess Capitalism must be strictly regulated?No, instead we see that human society will always have its weaknesses and dead weights. Instead of using that as justification for creating a more powerful government (which has done nothing in the past), we should take advantage of it. Self-Interest, in a way, is bad, but it is inevitable (even when you give to charity, you do it because it makes you feel good... not because of some altruistic spiritual guidance). We should take-advantage of self-interest, and that's what Capitalism is best at. We have laws to prevent murder and breach of contract, now let the business men compete to gain the consumers for themselves.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Interesting you brought up 400%, which has never been supported by evidence.I've smoked a bit and quit after a profound experience on shrooms. they actually made me dislike cigs. Point? That each individual is different, and YOUR addiction shouldn't effect MY decision on whether I want to smoke or do shrooms or w/e.And the American auto industry (including GM) would not have such a stranglehold on its consumers were it not for tariffs (which are provided by the American government and the foreign governments). I understand that you're in New Zealand, so I don't know how tariffs work for you guys, but here it creates a competitive edge for the American car companies (which include GM).But the problem with letting the public decide is that they do not consider civil rights/liberties. They consider what their morals tell them. If they voted based on common sense, all drugs would be legalized at this point (because an overwhelming amount of evidence shows that combating the drug industry is harmful towards society and our economy). As well, gay rights would not be an issue... in the States that actually legalize gay marriage it had to be done by the Supreme Court (which is not a Democratic process). If we left it up to the citizens, gays would still not be able to get married in any of the states they live in (I think maybe one or two, not sure). As well, gay adoption is still an issue in many states.Back to drugs, if we treated each drug on its detrimental effects, alcohol would be one of the most illegal, along with heroin and tobacco. However, that is not the case, because people and legislators do not make decisions based on common sense. Depending on common sense is wishful thinking. But even so, alcohol and the such shouldn't be illegal because, once again, it is up the individual. But I know, you don't care about "freedom of choice".And then we come to an entire debate on CO2 levels and ozone depletion, even though 97% of CO2 levels come from natural means and the ozone depletion was in areas were civilization hardly existed in the first place. These things are up for debate, of course, but this idea that us humans are even powerful enough to destroy the environment is kind of overplayed at this point. Simply put, I'm not that afraid that we're all going to die from speculative science. And the difference between my perfect world and yours is that in mine, you are free to live your own, individual life without a moral, corporate government telling you what to do, and in yours, I'm a slave to what the moral majority thinks (and its corporate government).
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

From my perspective your full of shit.It's funny, because instead of providing any evidence to prove any of your claims, like anarchy being bad causing people to do bad things (you provided Sudan, which has government... but did you know that every country that has government also has rape and murder?... weird). Or that kids will fuck their parents because of anarchy (now you say that you don't believe that... even though YOU were the one who showed concerns), or prostitution being legal causing problems (you say you have two friends... but you now blame Capitalism? your argument is confusing. would legal prostitution be okay under Socialism? please, clear up your actual beliefs instead of all this Danson).You see, all I ask is for you to show me evidence... otherwise, don't take away my rights. It's really quite simple. You believe I am full of shit... for what? Requiring you to back up your claims? I have not said that anarchy is good or bad... I simply do not know. But for you to act like freedom of choice isn't that great because of anarchy (a bad statement already), I would need for you to prove this. It seems that you are suggesting that it's okay to regulate people's personal choices because... well, you haven't even said why. You just say that it's okay. And this is why it's okay for Democracy to lead to removal of civil liberties... or are you trying to get at something else? Please, be clear.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Ah, so you refuse to provide any evidence and instead say things that aren't true, like "in your ideal world, i am murdered by the state". for most cases, I am against the death penalty. I was simply pointing out the legal consequences that can match the illegal action. Be it removal of life or freedom. Someone who has sex for money can not be punished by an outside source for they are not hurting an outside source. The same is not said for murder or rape. I've already explained this... but if I must again, so be it.And what proof that I got angry? If you wish to troll, do so on fagchan.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

But you said:"In my world, Capital Punishment would be used"-ThePygHow does that not apply directly to my statement that you just quoted?You don't seem to wish to address any of the things I brought up:-Evidence is impossible in social science.You fell back on "you refuse to provide any evidence" as if this is damning proof that I have no basis to my thoughts without hard evidence. Where is your evidence that what you are arguing is so golden? I don't wish you to provide me with any, just an acknowledgment that this is all speculation, A DEBATE so to speak.-Crime and deviance is something that some people do (for a number of reasons, theoretical or real) and there must be regulations to define it. These regulations necessarily overlap when it comes to "civil liberties" making them problematic.Maybe I missed it, but what is your working model of "freedom of civil liberties"? How is it supposed to work in society? How is it not as problematic as any (or all) 'solutions' due to the fact that it involves society and human beings?At least tell me how society would run along fine and dandy with NO regulations, not because you ever said it would but because you were so opposed to my suggesting that having no regulations would lead to disorder. OR If you are suggesting that disorder is around regardless of regulations (quite true IMO) explain how the current society could not be worse (or would be better) without regulations.But I believe you are simply wanting some regulations gone, not all. And the regulations you wish to go/change are to do with civil liberties. So again, what is your working model?Or are you willing to admit that you are, as I am, in many ways an idealist, with ideals based on not much more than a strong conviction that there has got to be a better way. How we proceed from there is where our similarities end. You call me a troll, but I remember YOU saying at the very beginning "your debate is stupid and doesn't work." Who is really the troll? That statement, along with the fact that you side with capitalism(!?) brought me into this argument in the first place.Your turn to rip my words to shreds.