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

You need to learn what socialism is. According to your weakly put together example, socialism is a system where everyone gets paid the same no matter how hard they work. This is not true. Please, if you plan to add arguments on this website at least know what you are talking about first."Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation."So, the football team would be more like this:Every player is given an equal opportunity to try out for any of the positions, regardless of previous training etc. Those found to have particular talent in any one position are given that position. Then, once practice has finished, each player is rewarded based on how much work and effort they put in, with the lower earners getting extra help from their team members to help them along. Thus the team is motivated by monetary reward.Now, the capitalist team would be more like this:The team goes to practice, those players whose parents could afford lots of expensive training get to be the highest paying positions, those who grew up in relatively lower income families and couldnt afford football lessons are put on teh Bench. After practice the quarterback and the highly paid positions are paid their high wage and go off home happy. While those with little trained skill (and an unknown level of innate skill) go home, with little pay. Soon enough those players can no longer afford to miss work to go to practice and the team loses many members. But hey, they still have the rich majority to keep them going.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

I know what socialism is. But thanks for trying to help. Your right though, instead of saying they all get rewarded at the end of practice I should have said that the coaches would punish the hard working players saying that they earned to much and needed to "spread the wealth around" and then praise the slackers. "those players whose parents could afford lots of expensive training get to be the highest paying positions"So those parents are the bad guys? Who says that those player's parents didn't come from nothing and get rich through hard work? That would make them good examples. " those who grew up in relatively lower income families and couldn't afford football lessons are put on teh Bench."Ha, okay you got this all wrong, if this was a capitalist team they would be giving all players opportunity to work there way up to the top. Thats like saying the government doesn't let poor people work! and that is not true. You need to learn what capitalism is."Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1] In capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated and traded by private individuals or corporations,[2][3] and where investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are primarily determined by private decision in a market economy largely free of government intervention.[4][5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[2][6] In capitalism, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8] In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market,[7][8] though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.[9]"
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

When the means of production are privately owned, those who do not own the means of production must get permission from the owners to produce wealth. That is the problem with our current forms of capitalism.When the results of production are publicly owned, those who produce more get the same benefit as those who produce less. This is the problem with communism.We need a middle ground where the means of production is communally owned and any tribute it takes from the laborers is returned to the whole community by equal distribution to everyone. However, anything produced by the laborers must remain their own - to use, spend, or gift as they please. The objective of this middle ground is to reward everyone for the work they did producing wealth while distributing to everyone in society the community based multipliers on the laborers' production. This would allow those who produce more through hard work or more efficient work to gain more than those who produce less - but still provide those who do less with enough to live on.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Yeah, people that are wealthy have an advantage, is that a bad thing? Thats like saying you don't like sports because they aren't fair because those who work hard have an advantage. You know whats good about capitalism? You don't have to be poor. You can help yourself. Better than anyone els can, yeah even government. "As you can see, a capitalist society clearly helps richer families much more than poorer families. " Why do you need society to help you? Families can help themselves better than anyone els can. Forget what the government and society can do for you and make a living doing whatever you want.That is, if your willing to work for it.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

You seem to be completely ignoring my arguments. I'm not saying that i feel its unfair because those who work hard have the advantage. I think that is very fair which is why i support socialism. I'm just saying that capitalism isn't this golden opportunity for anyone to work their way up to wealth. As i stated people are born into different socioeconomic positions. And those with poverty are much more likely to remain in poverty because of the way capitalism is set up. Socialism however gets rid of the advantages/disadvantages of being poor/rich. Explain to me this, if capitalism is so good, and "Families can help themselves better than anyone else can " why are so many american (Arguably the best example of capitalism in our world) families living off of welfare (a socialist program)? Evidently families cannot help themselves better than the government."Forget what the government and society can do for you and make a living doing whatever you want.That is, if your willing to work for it." This logic is flawed my friend. First of all, in a capitalist society, if i want to be a janitor (lets say i really enjoy the work) then i will be paid jack shit, no matter how hard i work. Whereas if im living in a socialized country i am paid in regards to how hard i work. So the only place where you can trule make a living doing what you want, is in a socialized country."Yeah, people that are wealthy have an advantage, is that a bad thing? " Not entirely, people who are wealthy through hard work and effort should have an advantage. But people who are born into wealth SHOULD NOT have an innate advantage over people born into poverty. The argument stands also for people who got into wealth/poverty through luck, such as winning the lottery or losing the ability to work in an accident.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"You seem to be completely ignoring my arguments."No I'm not."people who are born into wealth SHOULD NOT have an innate advantage over people born into poverty. "thats right, good point, but in my opinion the people born into poverty have the advantage. A person who grows up rich doesn't have the learning experiences and motivation to work for a good life that their other kid has. In fact some rich people are really hard on their kids because they know this. Just because people are well of doesn't mean they will give their kids everything without them working for it. That goes for people who win the lottery to."those with poverty are much more likely to remain in poverty because of the way capitalism is set up" Why so discouraging? Its been done before. Growing up in a poor neighborhood has been a good learning experience for allot of successful people. I once met a doctor, he grew up in the ghetto when he was young he got kicked out of the house, all he had was a pencil. He showed up to school every day until he graduated. He got a job. He eventually made it all the way through medical school. And he also told me that he is extra hard on his kids. He said that his kid was being bad and he gave his xbox away to some poor kid. Who are you to say what people can and will accomplish? And who is the government to say how hard I am working? Do you seriously think that would work? The government cant keep tabs on how much work every single person is doing.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Ok dude, you say it yourself: "A person who grows up rich doesn't have the learning experiences and motivation to work" They don't have the motivation to work because they don't need to in order to maintain their wealth. ""those with poverty are much more likely to remain in poverty because of the way capitalism is set up"Why so discouraging?"I'm happy to see you are an optimist, however i was not being discouraging, i was merely stating proven facts. Statistically people who are born into poverty or fall into poverty, stay in poverty. Its been proven historically, if you don't agree go do a simple google search."And who is the government to say how hard I am working?Do you seriously think that would work? The government cant keep tabs on how much work every single person is doing." -- no where have i suggested that. I am simply advocating a meritocracy, where positions and salaries are given based on your work history and work ethics. I'm not saying the government is going to keep track and rate you based on your work effort. I am however saying that the government will look to your work history and work success when you are being interviewed for a promotion/job.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"Ok dude, you say it yourself: "A person who grows up rich doesn't have the learning experiences and motivation to work" They don't have the motivation to work because they don't need to in order to maintain their wealth. "Right so wouldn't you say that growing up poor can be a good learning experience?"I'm happy to see you are an optimist"No your not."however i was not being discouraging"Well, you were trying to be."Statistically people who are born into poverty or fall into poverty, stay in poverty."Show me the statistics please.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"Learn to read.... I'm happy to see "you" are an optimist..."I meant to say that, no you are not happy to see that. Neither would I. Who wants to be the pessimist?And I don't remember saying anything about your goals. "Now, your turn. Show me some statistics, if you will, saying a significant amount of people can climb out of poverty in a capitalist system. If not, then cede the debate and move on."I don't need statistics to show you what people are capable of accomplishing, its sad that you need that. Now I want you to Show me some statistics saying how people can't climb out of poverty, not just saying that its hard because that is obvious.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

""Learn to read.... I'm happy to see "you" are an optimist..."I meant to say that, no you are not happy to see that. Neither would I. Who wants to be the pessimist?"Who are you to say if I'm happy or not? I believe that is claiming to know my goals. Dude... seriously? I'm not saying people CAN'T climb out of poverty, because obviously they can. But you claim that poverty acts as a source of inspiration for people to climb out, which is obviously not true. If it was true, then how could i have just produced all this evidence proving that the majority of the impoverished stay impoverished."I don't need statistics to show you what people are capable of accomplishing, its sad that you need that. "OK, again i say it, i know people CAN climb out of poverty, my only point is that it is extremely difficult to do. You are arguing against this point, so again i ask you to show me some statistics on why people dont climb out of poverty, if it is so easy as you obviously think. If you do not think it is easy to climb out of poverty, contrasting all the arguments have made, then socialism is the obvious answer."Show me some statistics saying how people can't climb out of poverty" --- read my last post, all of them point to how people cannot climb out of poverty, or how it is extremely difficult to do so. Since you obviously didn't see that, it leads me to one of several conclusions.Either: -You are blind, in which case i am sorry for posting so much text-You are just plain stupid, in which case you shouldn't be debating-You are profoundly retarded, in which case i offer my most extreme condolences and apologies-You misread my statistics, in which case i implore you to go back and re read them.Anyway, again i ask you to show me some statistics that say it is east to climb out of poverty, or how it acts as some sort of source of inspiration. I am not asking you to prove it is possible, but rather to prove that it is prevalent enough to outweigh the amount of poverty caused by capitalism.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"Who are you to say if I'm happy or not? I believe that is claiming to know my goals. "Sooo, by saying if your happy or not, I'm claiming to know your goals... doesn't make much sense to me. But hey I'm sorry I will stop claiming to know your goals. "i know people CAN climb out of poverty, my only point is that it is extremely difficult to do."Looks like we agree, (see my last post) I made that point to, I'm just not crying about it. "oh it's difficult to do, whhaah" get over it. "show me some statistics that say it is east to climb out of poverty"I never said It was easy to climb out of poverty. So why would I give you any statistics about it? "Either: -You are blind, in which case i am sorry for posting so much text-You are just plain stupid, in which case you shouldn't be debating-You are profoundly retarded, in which case i offer my most extreme condolences and apologies"Hey who are you to call me a blind stupid retard, "I believe that is claiming to know my goals."
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Ok... try and understand what i am about to say...We both agree that it is hard to climb out of poverty. In a capitalist system people who are born into poverty suffer severe disadvantages. Whereas people born into wealth get incredible advantages. The only system that would equalize these classes, and get rid of these inherent disadvantages, would be socialism."I'm just not crying about it. "oh it's difficult to do, whhaah" get over it. "-Did you just tell millions of people born into poverty to "get over it?" Lets see how you would fare if you were born into a poor family, and had to grow up in a poor neighborhood with a poor education. I'd like you see you "get over it." Furthermore, my point was not just that it was hard to do, but that it gives those born into poverty a very large hurdle to get over if they are to equally compete with the rich in a capitalist system.So unless you are advocating that those people born into poverty are somehow inferior to those born into wealth (which would make you ass-hole scum similar to Hitler) then you must agree that a socialist system is better.  Unless you can show me that a capitalist system somehow allows the impoverished to fairly compete with the rich.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

"The only system that would equalize these classes, and get rid of these inherent disadvantages, would be socialism."You might be right about equalizing the classes but a system can't help people as well as peope can help people. "-Did you just tell millions of people born into poverty to "get over it?""No, I was talking to you but I guess it was a little harsh. Millions of poor people have gotten over it, and have climbed out of poverty through years of honest hard work. You might wanna look at history. "Furthermore, my point was not just that it was hard to do, but that it gives those born into poverty a very large hurdle to get over if they are to equally compete with the rich in a capitalist system.So unless you are advocating that those people born into poverty are somehow inferior to those born into wealth (which would make you ass-hole scum similar to Hitler) then you must agree that a socialist system is better. "So im either hitler, or a socialist? This sucks. Any other options? I like to think of myself as a hard working American (who is not rich by the way). Of course people born into poverty have a big hurtle to jump over and of course poor people are not inferier to the rich. Much of what you say is correct but please realise that socialism is not the answer.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

"You might be right about equalizing the classes but a system can't help people as well as peope can help people. "Ok, show me some statistics please. Furthermore, we can see in the U.S. that people don't help people to the extent that the millions of people in poverty can easily move out of it."Millions of poor people have gotten over it, and have climbed out of poverty through years of honest hard work. You might wanna look at history."Again, show me some statistics."Of course people born into poverty have a big hurtle to jump over and of course poor people are not inferier to the rich.Much of what you say is correct but please realise that socialism is not the answer."Heres where i am coming from, look at this from my perspective:You make all these claims, like people can overcome poverty, and that people do overcome poverty, and then that people can better achieve this than a socialized government. Then you ask me to produce some statistics, so i do. But,when i ask you to do the same, you claim you don't need to. Yet you continue to make these same assertions. So, please show me some statistics that back up your claims. To clarify, im looking for some statistics that show that the majority of poverty in the U.S. (arguably the strongest capitalist nation at the moment, but pick another capitalist society if you would prefer) is the fault of those in poverty, and not a fault of the capitalist system, which helps those with money to keep their money."socialism is not the answer."-- i would like some reasons please... you have basically only said that people can help people get out of poverty better than a government, with no evidence whatsoever.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

the problem is the government shouldn't determine who is actually working the hardest. that's what socialism does. at least, under capitalism, people have a choice on who deserves the most.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

That choice is not as easy to come by. You obviously have a very entitled point of view.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

it may not be easy, but it's still possible. with government making the decisions for people, that is when it becomes impossible.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Where is your proof? I can tell you have a thing for the government. Remember that socialism and capitalism are principals in economics. Don't forget why government was even created.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Thanks for the down vote, now I truly know I'm speaking to a child. You should find the following useful:Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor.Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

did you ever think that the person who down voted you is the same guy who up voted me?1. i don't down vote unless absolutely necessary.2. i'm surprised i didn't, since that comment was useless in the first place. i just decided not to.The way you describe socialism makes it seem as if it were impossible. The government has to get involved in order to make that possible. thus, making the government control who gets what.but otherwise, how does that rebuttal what i said?
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I openly apologize if that truly is the case. Now for my rebuttal: You said at least it's possible. How so? That small possibility is so small and only influential in small numbers. Now as a help for the masses that is why socialism is more favorable compared to capitalism. The way capitalism works out in the real world is to form small elitist groups, socialism would help the masses and with equality comes progress.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

small elitist groups formed by the people. they wouldn't have made their money if the people in general didn't give it to them.Socialism takes away people's ability to choose (job, shopping, etc.). no progress can be made from this.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Good point, its not like businesses who make allot of money cheated everyone. Business is like democracy its by the people. "Socialism takes away people's ability to choose (job, shopping, etc.)"And another good point, I don't know what this country would be like without free enterprise.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Exactly, plus we can all agree in the mantra "all men are created equal." Capitalism favors abusing those born into lesser socioeconomic classes, so people are created equal, but treated different. In socialism, people are created equal, and treated equal, with those willing to work harder getting the extra benefits.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

not exactly. people have the ability to NOT work for someone if they don't want to. technically, under capitalism, the GOVERNMENT treats everyone equally. race, class, gender, abilities. it's a free for all.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is crude and brutal, but it gets shit done. Whoever can most effectively produce and distribute the stuff that people want gets massively rewarded with a disproportionate amount of the available resources. This exploits a fundamental human desire to become more powerful than that asshole in the next cave. Imagine that a path needs to be cleared through a forest. Socialism is a bunch of friendly people walking around with axes, chopping away, making a pleasant day of it. Capitalism is a godawful huge steamroller billowing smog and shaking the earth as it rolls. Both finish the job, but capitalism does it much more quickly and efficiently, albeit possibly crushing a few people and/or woodland creatures on its way.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

"Socialism is a bunch of friendly people walking around with axes, chopping away, making a pleasant day of it."Yeah a bunch of people being forced to chop down trees. Sounds like a lot of fun. What if you chopped more trees than me, and we got payed the same? What if you don't want to chop down trees? Sounds kind of crude and brutal to me.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism also forces people to do things they don't want to do. If people don't work, they can't make money and can't afford food or shelter.The difference is under socialism people are better taken care of (at least in the short term) due to higher wages, free health care, free education, etc. This is what I was getting at with my metaphor.