azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Bodies do determine what is needed, but everyone is different, so suggesting that one bottle is suffice for all is wrong.Who said that one bottle is sufficient enough for everyone? Are you mental? The British are supposed to be better with English am I right? You're supposed to see metaphors, and say something like 'smashing'? Or is that a stereotype?"I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.that was the metaphor, an example if you will.is taking more than you need defined?"Is the word need defined? Is the word more defined? Then yes, taking more than you need is defined. If you only need so much (example: 1), and you take more (example: 2) (you know what these words mean) then you are taking more than you need. Taking more isn't necessarily bad anyway, yet it is greedy if you are taking more than you need while another who also needs, goes without.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

It is impossible to know what any individual needs on a daily basis because humans wants and desires change everyday, so there is no way to quantify needs even if it is a metaphor or example. Greed is just some made up term with no real meaning. It is just used for rhetoric and political reasons.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Alright, analogies aren't working. Let's give this a try.Famous celebrities with millions of dollars don't need all of it, yet since they made it on their own they have every right to keep it in a capitalist society. While starving people who either can't work, or can't get a job because places can't afford to higher them, don't have what they need.The famous celebrities with their millions (regardless of earning it all on their own) are greedy for holding on to so much, while business that would have it and pay employees with it, go without.And before you reply telling me "How is it wrong if they earned it on their own?" I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's a flaw. It's a flaw that some people have to starve and or die while capitalism allows greed to flourish. So if you don't think greed is a flaw, then sure, I guess (to you) Capitalism is flawless.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Capitalism isn't flawed for starving people and successful entrepreneurs. Capitalism rewards those who work the hardest, and indigent always have charity. Granted, external factors can affect both sides all caused by government intervention into the marketplace.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

It's flawed for it's neglect of them.It rewards those who works, that's a great aspect of it, and it does not help those who don't work, that's the flawed aspect. It is our government's policy, government that supposed to help it's people, yet because it's leaving the people who don't work to rot, it's not being as helpful as it could be. That is a flaw, in my opinion.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

it does not help those who don't work, that's the flawed aspectVarious socialistic policies do help people who don't work, which is a flaw itself.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

What exactly is the problem with greed? I don't believe you mean being self-interested when you say greed. What do you mean by greed, and what is the problem with it?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

When one group or person has too much, while other groups or people have little or none. People always say Judge a country not by how rich the rich are but by how rich the poor are. Well America's poor aren't very rich because capitalism allows the rich to keep getting richer and the rest to fade into poverty.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

America's poor have it better than a lot of places. They just don't have it great compared to America's rich.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

That's beside the point, a problem is still a problem.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

No it isn't. Let's put it this way. Hypothetically, what if the bottom 10% of Americans are wealthier than how about 80% of the planet. But, these 10% are worth .001% of the wealthiest people. If that was the case, would it still be a problem?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Yes, in fact it is.What is wrong with capitalism the choices are 'Nothing' or 'Greed' well greed is certainly a problem. It's not a problem that's cause for uprooting the economical system that's been working for us for ages, but it is a problem none the less, and it's definitely worth noting that it's a problem, so that if a solution can ever be reached the problem will already be out in the open.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

So no matter how well you treat the poor, the only thing that matters is that they are as wealthy as the richest people. So, you don't think that it matters how good they have it, you lied.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

What? If their are people dying because of the way capitalism works, it's a problem, so it's wrong to say nothing is wrong with it.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I don't think the historical record supports people dying because of capitalism as opposed to any other factor.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Not that capitalism literally kills people. Capitalism is a system, that leaves people neglected, that neglect has people dying, and it's a problem.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

This is interesting. Laissez faire translates to "let to", but means "leave alone". To be free one must be left alone or neglected. To not be neglected in the context of this debate is to be beholden to or to rely on. Your issue seems to be not with Capitalism per say, but with freedom. You even said that the only supposed solution to the greed problem is unacceptable because it would trample rights. Freedom allows people to die. Freedom holds people responsible for themselves, but not for others. The problem with Capitalism is that it doesn't effectively shackle the able to the un-able.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Yes! It'd be similar with comparing it to parents who don't discipline their children.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

The view of government as parent and free people as children is what gets nations into the worst of troubles.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Then why is it that the government already babies us, telling us what we can and can not do, not because it will affect anyone else, but because it will affect ourselves?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

My hypothetical situation did not mention dying. What are you talking about? I wish we could go back to the time before capitalism was invented so that people wouldn't die any more.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

I said what because I didn't know what you mean. My answer was strictly to the debate, people are neglected in capitalism thus they die, it's a problem. You may be content with it, and it may be working for you, but that doesn't make it perfect, it takes an unbiased eye to see the flaws, and their are some.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Ok, you said:Well America's poor aren't very rich because capitalism allows the rich to keep getting richer and the rest to fade into poverty.What if the poor in America have it better than the regular people in other countries? What if being poor is equivalent to being successful somewhere else? If that was the case would you still think capitalism was bad because the poor in America live so much worse than the rich?Everyone dies. I don't know how much capitalism plays a role in that.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

It doesn't matter if they have it better, they're still suffering compared to the wealthy in their country. If that was the case would you still think capitalism was bad because the poor in America live so much worse than the rich?8You're considering poor to be middle class. I'm considering actual poor. As in food stamps and no* iPhone.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

It doesn't matter if they have it better, they're still suffering compared to the wealthy in their country. But not according to you. You said the only criteria was how rich they are, not how rich they are compared to the wealthy: People always say Judge a country not by how rich the rich are but by how rich the poor are.The poor people in America are rich compared to other countries. You're considering poor to be middle class. I'm considering actual poor. As in food stamps and no iPhone.You have to have an iPhone? Why is that a requirement? Everyone should have an iPhone if one person has one? How come having a loaf of bread means you are rich in one country, but not in another?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

You said the only criteria was how rich they are, not how rich they are compared to the wealthy:I never said only.The poor people in America are rich compared to other countries.Even so, some poor Americans can't afford food. Does it still matter if they are rich to other countries? Other countries aren't up for debate here, if they were, the poor Americans who are rich elsewhere, could just move else where. Since staying here is the issue, they are still poor and suffering, so it doesn't matter that they are millionaires in Istanbul or wherever. You have to have an iPhone?You completely missed what I was saying. Poor, meaning actually in poverty. The people who are actually in poverty, are not living with lavish things, they are living day to day on whatever they have and scraping by as the system that's supposed to help them get wealthy neglects them.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Even so, some poor Americans can't afford food. Does it still matter if they are rich to other countries?According to your quote, yes.Since staying here is the issue, they are still poor and suffering, so it doesn't matter that they are millionaires in Istanbul or wherever. It does matter, if being poor and suffering here is still a better life than a millionaire in Istanbul.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

I'm sorry could you show me what I said that would make it sound like suffering here, that's good else where, isn't still suffering?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

That's what your statement means, if you actually read it. If it is not actual suffering, but you move to a place where everyone is doing much better than you, it shouldn't all of a sudden be considered suffering.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

What does it matter if your suffering is less that my suffering, suffering is suffering. Their are starving people here in this country. I'm sure no one in Africa has ever said "Gee, I wish I was a starving American" Starving is starving. Suffering is still suffering.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

That's not what you are saying. You are saying that if someone is not starving in America, but is poor, they are just as bad off as someone who has no food in Africa because the richest people in Africa don't have an excess amount of food.I'm sure no one in Africa has ever said "Gee, I wish I was a starving American"I am sure they said I wish I was starving in America, though.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

You are saying that if someone is not starving in America, but is poor, they are just as bad off as someone who has no food in Africa because the richest people in Africa don't have an excess amount of foodWhen did I say that? I have, from the start, been saying "starving is starving" you've been saying if they are poor but still better off than more poor countries that it's okay.I am sure they said I wish I was starving in America, though.Why would they say that, if starving is still starving? You won't die any slower because the wealthy people in your country have more than the wealthy people in another country.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I have, from the start, been saying "starving is starving"You misrepresented yourself and said that starving compared to the rich people of the country. You made it sound like if there are rich people in America who can always find 3 meals a day, and really really nice meals, then poor people are the ones who can only get 1 or 2 crappy meals a day. It's not enough food, so they are still starving. But, in Africa, the rich people can barely get 3 meals a day, and sometimes only 2 meals, then starving in Africa means some days you go without eating. In this scenario wouldn't even you have to admit that the American poor person has the better deal?Why would they say that, if starving is still starving? You won't die any slower because the wealthy people in your country have more than the wealthy people in another country.You can't even admit that it would be way easier to get some kind of food in America where there is a fast food restaurant on every corner?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

I truly don't remember ever saying that starving is comparative.In this scenario wouldn't even you have to admit that the American poor person has the better deal?I would, but I don't see how I gave that impression.You can't even admit that it would be way easier to get some kind of food in America where there is a fast food restaurant on every corner?That wouldn't exactly be starving. That'd be getting access to cruddy quality food, rarely.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I truly don't remember ever saying that starving is comparative. ... I would, but I don't see how I gave that impression.When you say how the country treats its poor, then you say with respect to the rich. You added the with respect to the rich, so you are making it comparative. That's how I got that impression.That wouldn't exactly be starving. That'd be getting access to cruddy quality food, rarely.Undernourished, that's starving man.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Capitalism isn't based on taking but rather on trading. Additionally, most people have more than they need. What one needs is not much at all. In the U.S. it has historically been the case that the rich get richer and so do the poor (though it's never portrayed that way). Most poor people in the U.S. also have more than they need.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

I doubt most poor people have what they need. When their's the bare minimum, the homeless, and even those who aren't as desperate but still struggling, the minimum wage.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

If poor people didn't have what they need, they wouldn't be poor, they would be dead.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

They are scraping by, but some do die, and those who don't wait to die of natural causes go out the way most people relate to cowardice, suicide. If even one person commits suicide for lack of basic necessities, that is a problem.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Those who die or commit suicide based on lack of necessities are usually dealing with our broken health care system, which is not based on capitalism. Regardless, what do you see as the appropriate solution to someone having more than what they need when someone else needs it?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

There is no solution that wouldn't break rights, or revert it to communism.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Something for which there is no solution can't really be called a problem. Death due to old age is not a problem. It simply is what it is.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

I don't think that follows. It's a problem still, it just has no viable solution yet.side note that sounds like a great debate topic you should make it.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I think that a problem with no actual solution is not a problem but a condition.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

So if a solution is proposed it would somehow become a problem? Because if you want I could definitely make up some ridiculous solution.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

In an ideal Capitalist system, wealth isn't given or distributed, it is produced and earned. Someone having more than others isn't wrong all by itself. Relative poverty isn't necessarily a measure of real poverty. When someone base plenty and others have nothing, sometimes they both fully earned it. Context determines how just the situation is.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The issue isn't that some have more than others, the issue is that some can have more than others, in this system that isn't about protecting people, it's about earning your on and paving your own way.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The lack of regulation. Too much or too little regulation is not practical.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Unforuantely, regulation is not a byproduct of capitalism, that is the flaw of government bureaucracy whether to little or much.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Agreed. .
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Then you are on the wrong side. .
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

In her "agreed" statement, it says the position is "nothing". Perhaps the position has switched, which on very rare occasion happens in debates.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Wrong, clarified argument always sides with the corresponding statement.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

The only appropriate regulation should be based on how people interact according to civil law. This means enforcement of contacts, laws against knowingly selling poisonous food etc.Regulation tends to be laws that treat business as separate from people. Regulation also tends to be a simple money grab. If regulation was restricted to being based on civil laws already in place, we would have a lot less regulation in general.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I think it depends on the type of regulation. I do not believe in anarchy, but statism sucks too. I quote Joseph H. Pilates when I say: Neither too much, nor too little, but just enough.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Anarchists fail to see the importance that objectively defined unbiased, laws play in the functioning of Capitalism. They point to the many flaws of government as a reason to throw it out, rather than correct it. Capitalism requires the rule of enforceable law. The key is understanding and codifying proper laws, which are relatively few.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I thought capitalism was anarchy. o.O
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Don't let the anarchists or the anti-capitalists fool you. It is not the same.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Whose 'law' and who gets to decide for everyone else?Are there laws that shouldn't apply to everyone?Any sort of real Law is naturally enforces itselfHow do laws against murder naturally enforce? Same question for laws against rape, theft, slander, breach of contract, and simple traffic regulations.written words on paper that state murder is wrong; it seems a bit pointlessNot pointless in the slightest. Codified laws law out what will happen when said law is broken. Law don't simply say "don't do it" they say "don't do it, or else". I do have an issue with placing 'anarchists' into a broad categoryI was considering anarchists in the broadest of terms, those who don't believe in authority. Your brand of anarchy (anarcho-capitalist) still falls under this definition and I stand by my statements.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Just like Socialism it has political loophole. All out Capitalism is where the government is NOT involved in business. This was a wake up call in the early 1900's as you can see from workers rights and etc.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Problems:1. Honey Boo Boo Child2. The Kardashians3. Miley Cyrus4. Lotteries5. Democrats raising taxes.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

The problem is that consumers often consume the wrong things?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Fostering a self centered nature, capitalism has survived by elevating a select few to a state of financial independence while simultaneously securing support from the majority with the promise of the potential for each individual to achieve the same level of "success". This simply isn't possibly because individuals in our society gauge their own success only in relation to the success of others. If everyone were on equal footing, nobody would feel superior, or comparatively successful. The idea that capitalism will ever result in a completely equitable society is a popular mass delusion and it is this delusion that will ensure its continued use well into the future. Capitalism itself possesses no flaws, it is simply an elegant, efficient, self maintaining, and viscous cycle which promotes and encourages only the worst natural tendencies of the human race.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Capitalism is a Meritocracy (though I don't like the word). There is no delusion that everyone will be equally wealthy, only that successful people will deserve what they have.The idea that productive people are successful and that poor people can be productive and become more successful in no implies that wealth will equalize. This isn't what keeps Capitalism going. The idea that I can build a better future for myself is what keeps it going. Not better compared to the Jones's, just better compared to today.viscous cycle which promotes and encourages only the worst natural tendencies of the human race.This is not a flaw to you? is there something better that isn't the above mentioned things?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Capitalism and meritocracy are two very distinct things. The meritocratic party for instance believes in equal opportunity, which must be enforced, because otherwise people who're born into rich families will have an advantage over others through no decision or action of their own.I can't stress enough how wrong you are on this. I think F. A. Hayek got it right on one subject. Capitalism emerges because people blame their apparent "inferiority" on luck. For instance: "my neighbor was lucky to get that job". The injustice of the system works to it's advantage. Thus, the more rotten the system is, the better it functions.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I understand your point about Meritocracy. I have never heard of a meritocratic party but the idea of placing everyone at the very same starting line is impossible. Some people will always have various benefits that others won't (ie looks, strength, intelligence). I'm afraid your second paragraph is clear enough to me to be able to respond appropriately.