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

My approach? I have no approach. I merely said that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector... to you, this may imply an approach, but you would have to add words that show intent.You are the one asking me how the private sector could build the interstate (alone, since they, along with the public sector contracting them, built it). I am providing you with examples as to how it could possibly have been done. However, it is impossible to imagine an alternative Universe where history was different and try to actually create an argument.You may as well ask me how the West could conquer American territories if gun powder was never created... this is alternative history and a terrible form of argument. Good for science-fiction and literature, terrible for realistic debate.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Stop being deliberately obtuse to avoid dealing with the question.The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency. That's your view. If we actually believed that statement to true, if we had turned the development of the nation entirely over to the private sector because it can do ALL the jobs of the public sector better, we would have no interstate system.We would have no space program.We would have nothing remotely resembling the modern American military.Etc...And no, you are not providing me with examples of how it could be done, you're just claiming over and over that they would do it while avoiding digging into any details as to how they would actually pull it off. You are now going so far to avoid dealing with the question that you have resorted to claiming that it is impossible to use hypothetical scenarios. Which is just sad.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Ah, so my argument is just sad.I appreciate your rhetoric. Especially the part where you claim that I should be able to explain how things would have happened in an alternative universe. I do not know if those programs would have started or not, and really, is it my duty to know? Nope. I do believe, however, that the private sector is better at doing things than the public sector... no doubt. If YOU believe that the public sector is NECESSARY, there is no argument. If you believe that the public sector is more efficient... I'd have to disagree. But your argument is neither...
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

"Especially the part where you claim that I should be able to explain how things would have happened in an alternative universe. "There you go again, acting like explaining a hypothetical is like having some kind of supernatural power.I do not personally own a company. However, if I were going to ask someone to lend me the money to buy me a company they might ask me to explain how, IF I OWNED THE COMPANY, I would expect to make it profitable.According to you they would be unreasonably asking me to explain how I would behave in an alternate universe and that is just totally impossible.You're being ridiculous. And yes, sad. You just keep saying over and over that the private sector does everything better than the public sector then when asked to explain how they would do a specific thing better acting like I've just asked you to cast a magic spell or something.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

As stated, they did build the interstate system, so my position has been defended. What you're asking me is if they would have done it without being contracted by the public sector, and I do not know.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

"What you're asking me is if they would have done it without being contracted by the public sector, and I do not know."The public sector doing the financing, planning, directing, etc... of that project and similar projects of national scope is THE JOB THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOES.You said the private sector does every job better then the public sector and now you're saying you don't know if they could do their job at all (spoiler, they can't). Great. I consider your argument self-refuted.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

oh please.Saying that I don't know if the private sector would bother with making an interstate system in the first place (like a collaboration of many businesses, which I brought up and you ignored) is not the same as saying "the public sector does things more efficiently than the private sector".
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Would you please grasp this simple point I've been trying to hammer into your head all thread? It is not just that the public sector does things more efficiently than the public sector! (In some cases this is true, in most it is not). It is that the public sector does things the private sector DOES NOT and WILL NOT but which need to be done.And I did not ignore your "collaboration of business" point. I specifically and directly addressed it, asked you to provide an explanation of what kind of "collaboration of corporations" would take on such a problem and how, and you dodged the question just like you've been dodging it all along.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Y u mad, bro?I simply said that the private sector is better and more efficient. You say intestate system, I say "this does not refute".
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Perhaps your couple days worth of deliberate willful ignoring of everything I say is managing to irritate me. That's just a theory.One more time. The claim you made, which began this exchange, was that the private sector could do ALL THE JOBS the public sector does and do them better.This is wrong. I have showed you over and over why it is wrong and challenged you to support your contention with any actual fact based analysis whatsoever. You have repeatedly refused to do so while simply repeating your claim again and again.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You have showed me nothing. You said "the interstate system", and when I explained that this how they could possibly do it (if they felt that the project would be worth it), you said "tell me when they've done that before". They haven't, because the interstate system already exists (built by the private sector, as well, ya know).
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

No I damn well did not ask you to show me "where they've done it before". I asked you to explain to my what possible profit generating mechanism they would use that could offset the construction costs and thus motivate them to actually undertake the project. And you dodged, the way you have been dodging all thread. You threw out vague hand waving "oh, they would have passed on the costs somehow" but when pressed to perform some real math you run for the hills every time.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You want math, do you?okay, I'll just study construction and business for a few years and get back to you.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

So what you're saying is you have no idea how to evaluate whether the claims you're making are correct but you know you're right anyway?Ok, noted.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

once again, I appreciate your rhetoric.But you seem to still have no idea on what I've been trying to say this whole time. I've explained it fully... but you just don't get it.I don't know what else I should do...
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.Or how we get a space program.Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.For the first paragraph: Roads would actually be maintained even better if they were privately owned. People would be competing for more traffic.Second paragraph: First of all, I don't even want my taxes going to the space program. Second, I believe Obummer joined with Russia on the space program. Third paragraph: Why on earth would you want to take orders from a pencil pushing political leader? People don't want to fight a war just because some bimbo tells them too. Military's would be competitive. Whoever had the best training, weapons, etc.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

You have to be kidding me. You clearly1: Have no idea how much building an interstate costs.2: Have no appreciation of what "competing for traffic" would have to entail. Massive useless redundancy in the traffic infrastructure "competing" with itself... which DWARFS any possible waste you might want to complain about by having the public sector build a single system.3: I didn;t ask if you wanted your taxes going to the space program. Do you want satellite communications? Do you want GPS navigation capabilities? Do you want space based weather monitoring? Then you want A SPACE PROGRAM. Tell me how we get one without the public sector shouldering the initial costs of the research program, which were FAR beyond the capabilities or desires of any private entity considering there was no immediate return on investment possible.Fourth: Did you just suggest it would be better if the military was in control of itself and not under civilian leadership? As in... the united states armed forces was run by a military junta and whichever armed camp of mercenaries could outgun the other ones held the power???? Are you completely out of your mind? If you like that situation try living in Somalia, seems to work great for them.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Maybe you should be asking how we get anything without the federal government
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You do realize that much of what the military does is other than actual war fighting is accomplished through private contractors, right? Our weapons, contractors, our armor, contractors, our vehicles, contractors, maintenance, contractors, housing, contractors, admin, contractors and even some recruiting is done by contractors. The list goes on and on.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Who is stopping Exon, the Republicans? by giving them tax breaks
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Is this a rebuttal?First, big government gives out subsidies to oil companies. As well, the taxes are just passed unto the consumer.Ideally, we would eliminate special taxes AND subsidies, leaving the market completely competitive and not raping towards consumers.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Well the sides are presented in a biased way, and I know for a fact you have no understanding of the underlying groundwork that socialism is founded on. Theft isn't the correct word to use for socialism as all product is the product of community. And rewards isn't the right word to use because capitalism by it's own foundation requires one to fail for the system to continue. The only reason I side with capitalism is because someone will always fail and be replaced, and that socialism is grounded on social theories for the most part, not economic theories.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Communism

I've upvoted you, but my point of contention is that economic theories are social theories, aren't they?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Yes in a way, but I mean that capitalism was founded on economics while socialism was founded on idealist social contact.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism and socialism are broad categories with many meanings. I can agree that some forms of socialism are idealist, as are some forms of capitalism. An exact meaning of the two words have yet to be established. I'm thinking:Capitalism, private property resulting in private ownership of the common means of production in the hands of a few.(which allows for good production ability, but in the mean while a number of social ills may take place)Socialism, Common property resulting in common ownership of common means of production in the hands of the many. ( which carries a chance that common property may not be managed collectively or efficiently, and thus result as defacto being privately owned by their "managers" and also may result in social ills; but under the definition above it would stop being socialism when that happened)A mix between the two is the best, in that they can help check each other's problems while still allowing for each other's benefits and may one day result in primarily widespread private ownership with some common ownership in the hands of the many. I can go into this more if you wish. I'm not sure if I like the above definitions completely. They are open to change, what would be your changes to them?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

"I can agree that some forms of socialism are idealist, as are some forms of capitalism. "I have always seen the foundation of socialism to depend on a idealist level of human communication. With capitalism, I have seen accurate descriptions of what humans actually tend to do in economy"Capitalism, private property resulting in private ownership of the common means of production in the hands of a few."I agree up to the point of the hands of the few. I see capitalism as the empowerment of local business and the overall means become the standard of living for a populace, which range from good to bad however one or the other wouldn't affect another area of living. It is a deeply brutal system, but it's so much more likely to succeed then an idealist state. Your definition of socialism seems good enough to me. " I can go into this more if you wish."You may if you like, but I respectfully disagree that a combination of the two would result in any good way. The systems are simply founded on two entirely separate ideals and viewpoints into the human condition.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Agreed. There's no real way of bringing only the benefits of each side without letting the flaws in as well, otherwise we would have done so and there would be no need for such a debate, right?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

It could be argued that regulations on industry due to a democratic government is a limited form of common ownership.On small scales, co-ops, marriage, hackerspaces, community parks, etc can also be seen as a limited form of common ownership.Also consider products with a creative common's license, which grants elements of ownership(if not complete ownership) to the general populace.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Yes, so we can have -limited- examples of socialist ideals materializing. However, this doesn't come without it's drawbacks. For example, common ownership leads to moral hazard, remembering the Tragedy of the Commons.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages. A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons  and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_commons  are also possible. Moral hazards are more likely in certain types of power structures which can be avoided.An analysis of the current material conditions should lead to the best solution. Current trends are towards large scale individual ownership(computer, phones etc), mixed with community ownership( information)
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

And what exactly do you mean by community ownership of information?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

What if the economy changed? Most socialist literature I have read position a radical change in the economy, not merely in social relations. Why then have large corporations flourished, even in smaller towns, for example walmart? If capitalism empowers local businesses, then economies of scale shouldn't allow for large corporations. Perhaps we are not currently capitalistic according to a more detail definition you would use? I see them both as resulting from self-interest, their main difference is mainly on who's self interest is the primary and most effective one. Under capitalism, the capitalist has the advantages(so long as he remains competitive, ie stays a capitalist, or individual owner of capital) Under socialism, limited capital is owned and shared, which may allow for access to equipment which would be impossible for them to own individually. Consider a hackerspace, the members may have access to expensive machines they would otherwise have to rent for higher prices, and with more limited access. It is in their self-interest to own collectively. Private ownership, grants more control, and thus is preferred in most cases. However, currently, private ownership of many things is impossible for most people. Thus, in the name of their own self-interest, they may be interested in collective ownership.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

"Most socialist literature I have read position a radical change in the economy,"I have always seen the structure of socialism to be dependent of a very precise kind of social interaction and having its economy run off of said net."Why then have large corporations flourished, even in smaller towns, for example walmart? "Because we are not a capitalist state." If capitalism empowers local businesses, then economies of scale shouldn't allow for large corporations."Correct, in a true capitalist sate such corporate power would be greatly resisted against."not currently capitalistic "Correct, we may have ideals from capitalism, but we have a Frankenstein system."Thus, in the name of their own self-interest, they may be interested in collective ownership."Then they change systems if they feel one is more beneficial, but intermixing the systems is asking for disaster.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

The difference between the two systems mainly deals with how the wealth is distributed among the citizens. I must say that the is a socialist society pretending to be capitalist. If we were capitalist then why the wall street bailouts. This argument is generated to advantage the wealthy in the US. They want us to believe that we have a free economic system while they are spending their corporate welfare checks
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism works for those who do; Socialism works for those who don't.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Capitalism works for those that are greedy, ruthless and rich already. Socialism works for those that are none of these things.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

actually if you don't work in a socialist country you will not be able to get luxuries from the money = to the labor power. although you will get free healthcare.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

For all the flaws of a capitalism system, remember that socialism is dependant upon humanity rejecting human nature itself- it assumes everyone will be able to equally share everything, and that just isn't in our nature. Someone will want something different, or want a different status, and the whole socialist system will collapse slowly but surely from there.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Someone obviously thinks that "socialism" means "communism".What's sad is that someone who based their entire comment on something that silly somehow got a net balance of 3 up votes.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

There are distinctions but also similarities between the two- socalism is not far off communuism in many respects and like commumism human nature is the reason it fails.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Yeah, as illustrated by all the failed states all across western Europe.Oh... wait...
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Yeah, and if you bothered to look closely, you'd see none of them are a true socalist state- they all practise capitalism to one degree or another.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

It's valid whether or not they are the same thing, they are both based on expecting us to reject human nature.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

They don't expect you to reject human nature, there have already been communist villages.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Because in a group that small, everyone's watching everyone. Yes communism can work in small groups but when applied to a group larger than a single illager the system starts to break apart. You can get alway with it in large groups, becuse they have to have more impersonal governance.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

it can still work in a large system, it depends on how you will put forward communism because Marx never really said how the system works he just said what it will have. Suppose you are right, you can have a lot of small groups, then have a bunch of people who don't really have power but keep the system working, keep the order and make sure the proper amount of commodities are made.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

This video refutes the greed argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFEEzCzlQM&feature=plcp
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Someone should not be able to take what is YOURS... what you have earned. Socialism is rejecting nature model......and the idea that the fittest survive. Socialist want to steal from people to redistribute the wealth, not so in nature.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism rewards

Capitalism is the only fair and equitable system.You work you get to keep the products of your labor.You, not those who feel entitled to your hard efforts!
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism legalized theft

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"I'm also technically getting someone else's hard efforts too aren't I? If I do his job, and he does mine, then everyone's getting along fine. What's the point in keeping my product if it's of no use to me, but completely useful for my neighbour? That's just plain greedy.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You see, this was the problem with Marx's thinking, he assumed that everyone had equal ability, that nothing could possibly make anyone more productive than anyone else, that everyone deserved to be treated equally and that deep down, everyone wanted to give to the poor, because he said so. It doesn't work this way, in communism the hard-working feed the lazy, how does that work. The basic question is would ou rather live a rich man, with someone always better than him, or would you rather be poor, but have everyone around you also be poor.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Communism

Corporate Profit is only possible because someone isn't keeping All of their products of their labor.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

How is capitalism fair when you have a boss who does not make the product but somehow gets more than the workers.