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

In my world, capital punishment WOULD be used, but in my world, it would be used when the evidence is practically irrefutable. In the real world, I believe that Capital Punishment is used too frequently and unfairly in order to still be legal. Yes, it should KIND OF be legal, but with surveillance, witnesses, DNA, and motive. Almost NO person who has been executed has been executed with this evidence... And my rejection of your comments on disorder and anarchy is that you seem to equate my beliefs as similar to Anarchy, but are unable to describe how Anarchy is bad. You point to countries with corrupt governments... that is not anarchy. The term may be used to describe the gang and pirate problems, but there is still a government with a police force... they just support the gangs.YOU brought up Anarchy, and if you are to do so, I would hope that you would have a basis for attacking it after implying that my beliefs are that of an Anarchist.But in the end, I wish for you to provide me reason for why civil liberties should be regulated (drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, art, speech, etc.) when enough people say they should? I've brought up gay marriage, and you were a bit iffy on it. I ask again, do you support gays being denied marriage just because most people in the United States are against it? Do you support women being denied the right to get an Abortion just because most people were against it (the Supreme Court turned Roe v. Wade into a Federal Law, forcing States to allow abortions... it was not "Democratic")? It seems that your love for Democracy over Civil Liberties is far more harmful than my love for Civil Liberties over Democracy. True, I do not care about the personal lives of others as you possibly do, so I guess it would come to this disagreement. I believe that personal lives should not be infringed, no matter how much it may disgust the general population. Too many people have suffered enough because of this. It was once considered disgusting for a black to be considered a human being. So yes, we've both been trying to say the same thing. YOU believe that Democracy trumps civil liberties, I believe the exact opposite. I am for personal freedom of choice, you are for the majority deciding what lifestyles we can live.Yes, I know. As well, I can see that you're not a troll. I had my suspicions from some of your rhetorical devices... but you're serious 8l
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

If capital is merely the use of capital in order to extend business then was the economic situation during feudal times capitalism? How about hunter gathers, they used tools(capital) to create things, which they they traded for other things(business). Was Stalin's 5 year plans capitalism, he used capital to expand types of businesses(rapid industrialization)? Your definition of capitalism is very general, to the point it can be applied to every time period, making it useless for differentiating among the various economic systems which have existed throughout time.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

sorry, forgot to point out in the beginning that it ALSO includes free trade/market. Hunter Gatherers, yes. Stalin's 5 year plan? no.Although, I've pointed that out so many other times.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

so should capitalism not be regulated? If so, will what deregulation will result in also be capitalism? Since a completely free market destroys itself. Stalin could of got his resources from one place, or another; if it was with in his country he probably could just take it but if its outside he'll have to trade or go to war. Its not much different of a situation then when the south had slaves, the plantation owner traded freely but the slaves didn't. Was the economic situation in the south of America before the civil war capitalism?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

A completely free market doesn't destroy itself. People might destroy each other, but that's under any system of economics or politics. A free market will continue to be free so long as there's no government interference.Stalin's 5 year plan was part of the Socialist, Centralized Government... that's not the Free Market. That's government controlled market. Practically the exact opposite.Slavery is hard to go by. This is where the issue of Capitalism as an Economic system becomes tied in with the Social and Political nature. Can slavery exist in a Capitalist society? Most Capitalists would say no. The reason:Capitalism is a system where men are free to trade and work for their own needs. It's a system based on the Free Market/Trade system and extended through the building or gaining of Capital. Slavery is a system where men are forced against their own will to work for other men. Because men do not have a choice in their employment, slavery is not Capitalism.Now, if slave owners tried to make the argument that blacks weren't human beings, it would then become a debate on whether it truly is Capitalism or not. But, since science would support that blacks are, in fact, human beings, slave owners do not have an argument and the issue on slavery being okay in a truly Capitalist society remains the same: no, it's not.Has America ever been truly Capitalist? 100%, most likely not. But I will say that once slavery ended, America was at a very high state of Capitalism. Plus, the North had been much more Capitalist than the South before hand. Lincoln did a lot of good for Capitalism. He took no stand on Unions vs. Big Business, showing that it was up to the people to settle worker's rights disputes. He freed enslaved men, showing that people had the right to choose how employment should benefit them. The only problem, maybe, is that he supported tariffs. That is against Capitalism, as well.The Constitution was meant to allow 100% Capitalism, but they crossed out the part that banned slavery. Now a days, we are far from it. We're much closer than most of the world, but still far from it.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

It is in the interest of companies to not have competition, thus they will eliminate the competition when given the chance. The free market would allow companies to make themselves monopolies, meaning there wouldn't be competition and the monopolies would control the market. :) If someone has no capital, they are forced (against their will) to work for another man; likely under situations where they are unlikely to gain capital. most men under capitalism are free to trade their labor, or die. All slaves are free to labor, or die. A difference between unregulated capitalism, and slavery is that under one system the great majority of people are owned by a class and under the other who you belong to is more explicit.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Monopolies are possible through Capitalism. They even occurred at times, sure. But that is still a free market as long as there is no government interference. Now, there is no perfect Monopoly, just how there is no perfect Competition. I think that too many people confuse those terms, though. Also, under government we still have monopolies, only government supported monopolies instead of natural monopolies.If you are referring to the homeless, they do not have jobs either. They are still alive, though. Your example is a really bad one since it's an extreme circumstance. Ideally, sure, technically you can make the argument that a man under Capitalism would have to work or die. But realistically, that is not TRULY the case. Yes, many men have to swallow their pride and do jobs that they do not want to do in order to provide for themselves or their family, but that is not nearly the same as slavery, where people are beaten into labor. Very different from a guy saying "shit, i really need money so I'll just work for this douchebag for the rest of my life". So trying to somehow say that slavery works with Capitalism under that analogy still doesn't work.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

So monopolies can't interfere with the market in similar ways to how a government may? jobless Homeless are alive by charity, welfare or theft. Being forced to work a job you don't want to Is more then swallowing your pride, its a forced way of life and submitting to the will of another man/men. Refusing to submit will leave you with no one pitying you enough to give you charity, government determining it needs not give you welfare, and theft giving you prison or death. You have no independence in capitalism, unless your rich and in which case you have those who work for you.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

you're saying this as if currently, all employed people people are working for that certain business because they have no choice.Here is the reality. Most do have choices in which job they take. They pick the one that suits them. If you're referring to the fact that they HAVE to work... sure, everyone has to work. It's part of life... even in a socialist society, you have to work (except government tells you what you must do). In a Capitalist society, we have unions which also benefit the workers. The Unions compromise with the managers, trying to make a better work environment for the employees. Does it always work? Well... currently, the employer gets the shorter end of the stick since government favors unions, but in general, the more rational party will receive the best benefit from compromise. But to suggest that just because some people decide that in order to survive they must stick with a shitty job that they don't want is somehow the same as slavery is actually very disrespectful towards the descendants of slaves, and I demand that you apologize towards every African American.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

It's funny how you say Pyg has facts wrong, when you yourself have them, too. 10% of Americans have 90% of the wealth. 1% of Americans doesn't have "all" of it.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 populationCapitalism works through exchanging goods and money, not hoarding it. In a capitalist country, I sell you a ham, you pay me 5 bucks or so for that ham. I buy something else with that 5 bucks, that keeps the economy flowing.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

1% of Americans doesn't have "all" of it.Firstly power and wealth are 2 different thingsI never said they'd have ALL of it. They'd have most of it and can exert so much influence that their power is basically 99%.I sell you a ham, you pay me 5 bucks or so for that ham. I buy something else with that 5 bucks, that keeps the economy flowing.Thanks for that. I'm sure your contribution will go a long way.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism and Democracy are unequivocally the best separate forms of economic and political systems.Therefore, capitalism is truly unattainable without democracy because ultimately capitalism without democracy eventaully turns toward fascism and corporatism.Whereas, democracy is also truly unattainable without capitalism because ultimately democracy without capitalism eventually turns toward socialism or communism.However, for the sake of the debate, between the two, capitalism is still better standing on its own.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Therefore, capitalism is truly unattainable without democracy because ultimately capitalism without democracy eventaully turns toward fascism and corporatism.Whereas, democracy is also truly unattainable without capitalism because ultimately democracy without capitalism eventually turns toward socialism or communism.So you're saying if they're balanced right (like ying and yang - democracy good capitalism evil) it makes a great system?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Apparently, the relation between economic and political freedom is too much to handle.Economic freedom is an end in itself and is indispensable towards political freedom.The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power by dispersal and distribution of power as a system of checks and balances.By removing economic activity from the control of politics, the market eliminates this source of power.Economic power can be dispersed while political power is much more difficult to decentralize. If economic freedom is absent, concentration of power is inevitable.Therefore, in a democracy, the majority will always gain the concentration of power, but economic power fights back.So, America is a democracy and capitalist, and without capitalism, the wealthy would absolutely have no power because of democracy's power is vested in the majority, and they would take that power away, thus, capitalism does keep it on a even level. Yet, it doesn't appear level because political power is not as materialist as economic power. In other words, there is more money vested in economic power.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Economic freedom is an end in itself and is indispensable towards political freedom.The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power by dispersal and distribution of power as a system of checks and balances.By removing economic activity from the control of politics, the market eliminates this source of power.lol WTF??So, America is a democracy and capitalist, and without capitalism, the wealthy would absolutely have no power because of democracy's power is vested in the majority, and they would take that power away, thus, capitalism does keep it on a even level. Yet, it doesn't appear level because political power is not as materialist as economic power. In other words, there is more money vested in economic power.I can agree with that. But what's wrong with giving the wealthy no power?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

As noted before, democracy without capitalism leads to socialism or communism, and then instead of power in economic individual hands, it would be the hands of government. For me, I don't view that as appetizing.Well, in capitalist world, the wealthy are the people who create jobs. Government can create jobs but with more taxation but government don't create wealth for the economy.Everybody want no power for the wealthy just until if they become wealthy.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Democracy does act as a check against capitalism, somewhat at least. Communism and socialism are broad categories which have multiple definitions, There is anarcho-communism and forms of socialism where government has little involvement in running businesses but rather co-ops are the norm. The wealthy don't create jobs, there is a demand for a product or a service, and there is a demand for money. The wealthy have money, and the capital, to pay someone to preform the service or produce the product. with out that demand, there would be no jobs. The market creates jobs, and the wealthy are not a necessary factor in creating jobs. If some one is skilled enough, they can become self-employed and not be wealthy. If a community has a need, they can pool their resources together to satisfy that need(co-ops). The wealthy are middle men, is it wrong to want to cut out the middle man?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Of course, there are multiple definitions of communism and socialism as while as for capitalism. Anarcho-communism criticism is that productivity and technological progress would stagnate as individuals would not have the incentive to work that monetary reward provides. This has really been used in hunter-gather tribes.Life is about incentives and neither all forms of socialism or communism provide that need.Yeah, the market only creates jobs through the demand of a product or service, and without a demand, there is no supply, yet since the wealthy have the capital, there is perception that the wealthy create jobs, just as government creates jobs.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

I don't think money is an incentive, its a middle man to. People have a demand/desire for something which is most easily gotten by money. People don't desire money in and of itself, its only value is what it can be traded for. with out money people would still desire things, and thus still have an incentive to do stuff. It'll just be more direct, you won't have to first get money then get the thing or get something which someone else wants so you can trade for what you want. Right now our options are either money or bargaining, due to economies of scale and our level of technology our production methods are tied up in our social networks. If we can find ways to separate those two things or at least make them more harmonious it'll likly turn out better for people. Fast food stores would disappear cause no one really wants to work there, but scientists would still experiment, engineers would still engineer, programmers would still program, its what they do because they desire to do it; the money is nice but it usually isn't the reason they do it.Money and having the wealthy as middle men has their advantages, but if we can create a better system without them I'm all for it. (it just has to actually be better)
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

If life isn't about monetary incentives, what is it about? Charity? How does one trade or live? Are we supposed to go back of an agrarian economy?Right now our options are either money or bargaining, due to economies of scale and our level of technology our production methods are tied up in our social networks. If we can find ways to separate those two things or at least make them more harmonious it'll likly turn out better for people.Seriously, don't know what this means. What does economies of scale Fast food stores would disappear cause no one really wants to work thereDo you know that for a fact because according to this survey, none of those are in the top 10. WorkWe already have the best system. Capitalism provides incentives because those on the bottom, they have a incentive to do better and those on the top, to continue to do better.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Imagine you can't trade money for anything. You'll still desire, your desires are your natural incentives. Money is the tool others use to get you to do what they desire, then once you have it you use it the same(because you have to). Doing something for yourself, especially if your a programmer, scientist, engineer, etc., can easily also be doing something for another; those professions have self-interest in harmony with social-interest. Money can get in the way by lack of funding more then by providing a boast by incentives in such fields. Right now we must have others do things for us to survive, the farmer makes us food, the group at the electrical plant gives us electricity, etc. Money is a subtle coercion, without the use of which we would starve. Now imagine a greater independence, an automated greenhouse for food attached to your house, renewable energy for electricity, money would be less of a need. Economies of scale are factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as scale is increased. Its currently cheaper and more efficient to produce energy in a plant then by decentralized and small renewable means, thats changing though. Most people on bottom knows they will stay there, and the ones on top has enough money piled away for multiple extravagant life times.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Everybody want no power for the wealthy just until if they become wealthy.True that.If government isn't good for the economy... how comes the USSR was a superpower?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

If government isn't good for the economy... how comes the USSR was a superpower?Yet, the USSR collapse.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

Everything will collapse.America will collapse. USSR collapsed due to millions of reasons. Some of it is due to the government. America is on the verge of collapsing. A lot of it due to capitalism.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Can you name one reason why the USSR collapse other than this one?Lack of Innovation.This is one of differences between socialism and capitalism.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Because they used other means of motivating people to work...ever heard of the Gulags? But hey if you want to live in a society that throws you into concentration camps for fucking up, be my guest.In addition, the USSR wasn't able to financially sustain itself and that's why they lost the cold war. The economic strain of keeping up with the U.S.'s military was too much for them, and they eventually went under.A guy I knew who had gone over the the USSR during the cold war told me a funny story about their military actually. The USSR couldn't afford to produce different sized shoes, so everyone was forced to wear the exact same size boots. Now I don't know about you, but this sounds pretty damn uncomfortable.So let me ask you this: during the cold war would you have rather lived in the U.S. and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism, or the USSR with their oppressive version of communism?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

So let me ask you this: during the cold war would you have rather lived in the U.S. and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism, or the USSR with their oppressive version of communism?Who said I'm all for the USSR? lol. You guys have an amazing inability to read - or is it just picking and choosing what and when you feel like it?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

You seem to be arguing against capitalism, and advocate for a centrally controlled economy, so I ask you: of all the centrally controlled economies in history which would you prefer to live in rather than the U.S.?You used the USSR as an example of where communism "worked" and yet you also claim you would refer to live here. A little contradictory, don't you think?
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Why do you keep claiming that Capitalism is somehow evil? Capitalism is just trade. You have something I want, and I have something you want so let's trade. I'm not sure what's evil about this, since both sides are benefitting, but I'm sure you'll give me some hilarious reasons.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

If capitalism is merely trade then was the economic situation during feudal times capitalism? How about hunter gathers?. Was Stalin's 5 year plans capitalism, he had to trade to get his resources for industrialization. Your definition of capitalism is very general, to the point it can be applied to every time period, making it useless for differentiating among the various economic systems which have existed throughout time.
Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

Way to copy and paste.Feudalism was initially not free trade because the peasants has to give virtually everything they made to the lord. The ability to keep some of what you make for spending is necessary for capitalism to work. In other words people need capital for capitalism to function. Later, when the peasants were given more economic freedom, they did begin to trade, and some made a lot of money. This is what led to some serious economic growth in Europe.Hunter gatherers didn't really trade, they just found what they needed to survive.On a large scale Stalin was using capitalism (however ironic that may be), but within the country itself everyone essentially worked for the government, and that which was made was not given to the individuals who made it but to a central authority who then decided who got what.The term capitalism could be applied to various times in history, and often those civilizations which allowed free trade to exist grew more than those which did not.As I said before, capitalism is a very basic concept, and I'm not sure why people would consider it evil. It's neither evil nor benevolent, just a system of trade that promotes economic growth.