azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

A competitive system integrated with the private sector could match the wasteful and inefficient system of pricing and services of a government postal service. As of right now, I can't prove that because it's never been allowed. Public monopolies are economic fiction that defends 19th and 18th Century monopolistic privileges and has no useful place in the 21st-century American economy. "The threat of privatization to universal mail service is a phony issue. In fact, as United Parcel Service and Federal Express demonstrate daily, universal delivery service is an objective to strive for, not retreat from. Not surprisingly, UPS and FedEx are now prepared to deliver to more homes and businesses than is the USPS." [1]Just because you decided to call the postal service exclusively a service doesn't mean it is not a business.As noted before, the Postal Service is a chartered, fully operated and owned corporation by the Federal Government. What don't you understand about chartered and fully operated? This is the definition of what a business is. The Postal Service is more businesslike than ever before. Examples: Amtrak, PBS, FDIC, Americorps, FCIC and Tennessee Valley Authority.Sure, I recognize the constitutional mandated monopoly, however, it can be repealed by a constitutional amendment.Rules and regulations are only to prevent competition by hindering your competitors, so if the private sector was allowed entry, the government is terrified that they would undercut and outperform the USPS and render them useless. The Postal Service is not to maintain low operations for minimal cost, it is to maintain maximized cost; that is what a monopoly is regardless what type it is.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Yes, you could set price ceilings. However that is missing the point completely. If you want the private sector to run the show you have to set the price ceiling HIGHER than the point at which they break even with their operating costs, or else no private sector company is going to get into the business in the first place. And that point is WAY HIGHER than where the USPS is operating now.Privatizing the postal service = much higher prices. And while your lecture on the fiunction of the Supreme Court is fascinating, it's also irrelevent since I never claimed the Supreme Court made any laws. What it did is handed down a ruling on the law that already existed. And that ruling made it clear that the postal service is neither legally defined as a business, nor operates ike a business. And you have yet to dispute any of those facts. All you keep doing is saying over and over again that they charge money to people who use their services to cover their expenses when providing that service. Good for you. Doesn't make them a business. Businesses exist to MAKE PROFIT. The postal service does not. It exists to PROVIDE A SERVICE TO THE NATION.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Private Postal Service doesn't mean higher prices.As noted before, the Postal Service is a chartered, fully operated and owned corporation by the Federal Government.What does this sentence say? Does it mention business everywhere in the sentence? No, USPS is a federal corporation, and since the Congress defined the government as not a person as private corporations are; yes, it is impossible for the USPS to be a business. It is a federal corporation. Thus, the government is enforcing the public monopoly since the USPS is doesn't apply to antitrust laws.Lastly, how can I dispute what the Supreme Court rule on? or what Congress decided. I have no control over them.So, if the Postal Service doesn't charge money to cover their expenses, how do they generate operating costs since they are a service?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

The public sector is not better than anything. Government is inefficient.I can't help but feel that this is more of an ideological statement than a statement of fact. Through coercion or otherwise, the reason why we aren't talking about privatizing the postal service is because most people are genuinely happy with it. It works. I'd much rather use the United States Postal Service than UPS or FedEx. If you want to use either of those services you are free to do so.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

If you want to use either of those services you are free to do so.Considering the U.S. Constitution piled with a myriad of laws and regulations, how would I use UPS or Fed Ex for first class mail?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

All privet business is subject to regulation, if you want to repeal all government regulations that would be a different matter entirely. Your idea of a Laissez-faire economy has been tried before, it's the type of economy that the United States had just prior to the Great Depression. Needless to say, it didn't work.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

You are sadly mistaken to think that capitalism put us into the depression or Keynesian economics got us out of the depression.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

And you are sadly mistaken if you think capitalism always precludes regulation. There is a difference between capitalism and Laissez-faire capitalism. It would help your arguments if you understood this difference.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

I know the difference between capitalism and Laissez-faire capitalism. TYPO.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Please elaborate....I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Would you like to hear or read it? First, the Great Depression was originally started as a recession, but significant mishaps in monetary policy destabilized the economy, particularly by the Federal Reserve along with irresponsible fiscal policy by Congress. These policies in turn shrank the money supply tagged with high taxes, which then greatly exacerbated the economic situation, causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Second, WWII didn't get America out of the Depression. The Depression was prolonged by large scale government spending.The misconception of prosperity during and after the war is common relating to unemployment rates, which is not surprising considering 16 million men and women were removed during the course of the war and are not considered as labor force.Furthermore, when an economy shifts vast amounts of production to planes, ships, guns, and etc, and treated as prosperity, then producing planes, ships and guns are indeed good economic policy even if dumped into the ocean. Not to mention, consumer goods were rationed and standard of living was low.If WWII was indeed the factor, then why didn’t the end of the war plunge the country back into depression, or at least another recession? Rather, 10 million men rejoined the work force and large government spending ended after FDR's death and the end of the war.Lastly, in 1946, economic output returned to pre-1929 levels after limited government spending."War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.” ---Ludwig von Mises
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

All depressions start out as recessions. A depression by definition is a prolonged recession. You are attributing the great depression to "mishaps in monetary policy" which is kind of vague.What caused the Great depression was out of control banking, which ultimately caused the Stock Market to crash. Banks where giving out more money than they could give back at anyone time, this is because at this time there was no federal regulation that mandated banks had to keep a certain amount in their coffers. When people discovered that the banks might not be able to pay them back, people panicked and there was a massive withdraw, everybody pulled their money out at once which caused a collapse of the banking infrastructure. And ultimately a collapse of the stock market. This problem was made worse by the great dust-bowl. The government refused to interfere with the free market as part of the Laissez fair principals of the time, believing that eventually the problem would fix itself due to the "Invisible hand".The reason why most historians attribute WWII as the end of the great depression, is because this caused a sharp increase in demand by the government for a number of war-related services. And the reason the US wasn't plunged back into a recession after the war is because of two factors.1) Soldiers had earned pay, which they could then spend on their return home.2) Military production did not stop after the war, as tensions with the soviets was starting to rise.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

If the privatization contract was written to mandate universal delivery, no one would lose service, and I think you'll find that he winner of the contract will use all available means of complying with "universal delivery", even if means subcontracting back to someone else. That's part of the beauty of private enterprise, there no rules prohibiting HOW "universal service" must be performed. I believe that the USPS should be reformed into a Contracting and Oversight business, where their only function is to write ,award, and oversee/evaluate completion of that service.Also, the USPS business model is outdated, like the contested closing of the Berkley, CA post office. Better to sell those beautiful bldgs for cash and move-into supermarkets, and other places where people naturally congregate in the course of their daily lives.Finally, USPS's labor costs are way out-of-sight, when compared with UPS & FEDEX.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

lmao.You can send a letter anywhere in the 3.79 million sq mile expanse of the US for 37 freakin cents, and you want private companies to take that over?You'd be paying $5 for stamps by tomorrow.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

This is more about efficiency than effective because of the coercive monopoly. UPS and FedEx would hire more people where they would be able to cover the vast plains of the United States. The private companies would have more opportunity if the ban on private companies would be repealed.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Wow, there you go again. First we can cut health care costs by hiring lots and lots of doctors and nurses and building lots more hospitals... which have to be, you know, paid for. Now we can cut postal rates by hiring lots and lots more delivery people! Who have to be, you know, paid.In your view it seems that any cost can be reduced by spending more money... it's fascinating really.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

any cost can be reduced by spending more money... it's fascinating really.You should talk. The government is forcing people to buy insurance to reduce insurance costs. Seems to me the same logic.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

You should talk. The government is forcing people to buy insurance to reduce insurance costs. Seems to me the same logic. Which is a sad commentary on your ability to apply logic.It's the same as the difference between getting a larger customer base, and hiring a larger sales staff. Doing these two things has VERY different results on your costs.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Since I can't apply logic by your standards, what is the difference between larger customer base and larger sales staff. More mail=More staff, More money for Medicaid=More Staff. 17,000 more IRS agents will be needed for the new health care insurance costing additional 10 billion.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

You can't possibly be this denseCustomers represent profit. Staff are EXPENSES. Sometimes necessary expenses to bring in that profit... but still EXPENSES. If you can't get that far you have no business discussing any kind of economic principles.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Price Elasticity of Demand
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Determinants of Price Elasticity of DemandSubstitute goodsPercentage of incomeNecessity DurationBreadth of definitionBrand loyaltyAssuming that you know the meaning and the determinants of price elasticity, how does the postal service pertain to the previous statement or were you referring to the health care statement?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

No they wouldn't. Private companies generally hire less people to perform the same tasks as their public counterparts. A good example is walmart which is notorious for understaffing their businesses. The reason is simple, the less employees the greater the profits.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Private companies generally hire less people to perform the same tasks as their public counterparts.Wrong, went into a Best Buy the other day, and within a 10 minute period, I was asked if I needed help by 3 associates.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Wrong? There is no public counterpart to compare it to, how can it wrong? Do you even fact check things before you say them? First of all, a one-time subjective experience at a single store doesn't tell us anything especially when we have statistical data to the contrary. Second of all, the number of 'associates' at BEST BUY that greet you at the door says absolutely nothing about how many people the average private business hires in comparison to a similar one run publicly.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

So, where is this statistical data?<<<-------------------------
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Right Here:http://beforeitsnews.com/news/41/988/Comparing_Private_Sector_and_Government_ Worker_Salaries.html
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Ok, great, thanks---------------------------------------------
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

I really can't help but to dispute somebody who spells 'cents' as 'sense'.Where are your sources which indicate that the price of stamps would soar if the postal service were privatized?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

fair enough, corrected.Proof = UPS and FedEx. They already charge more, and they have to compete. Imagine if they didn't.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

They charge more because the US postal service takes most of their business.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Correct!! What don't liberals understand about the term 'public monopoly'? A government agency is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

They're liberals - they must have some problem or other. Joe and I agree that they should be locked up in a sanitarium - for their safety and for others.Obviously the smaller company would need to charge more than the major company. My uncle owns a delivery company - he charges nearly double what UPS charges. If he got bigger than UPS, he'd charge less. But they, along with Canada Post and a few others, are so large that there is virtually no more room for him to expand.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

What if your Uncle was by law, forced to service EVERY address in his town? Would his costs go up or down? Your Uncle cannot by law, charge more for a longer delivery than one next door. Your uncle also must deliver his delivery to the new address if someone moves( no matter how far away) for no additional cost for 18 months. Now how would those regulations affect the cost for your Uncle.Now, could your Uncle compete against a company that cherry picked his biggest deliveries by giving them a discount but the competitor decided they didn't want to deliver to the 30,000 smaller customers and your uncle was forced by law to deliver to those non-profitable customers? How long do you think he would stay in business? How long would the 30,000 non-profitable deliveries continue to be serviced?Not very long for the same price I would guess. Universal service is what drives the regulations of the USPS.And I'm not liberal and agree with terminator on the things I've read he posted.... just have some ties to the USPS.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Again, why should urban people have to subside for cheap mail for rural area residents at he expense of rural area people?There is no justification for that but redistribution of income.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

We can choose not to but the results will be higher prices and loss of service to some .Again, if privatized you would complain about the prices or loss of service.If privatization is what you want then you must accept this and tell a large percentage of the country that they will not receive anywhere near the delivery they now do. Just pointing out the concesquences that you did not bring up.There are two choices,privatize and see higher prices and loss of service to half the country(area wise) or keep it the same.UPS and FED-EX will not provide universal service at the prices they do now, it is impossible.So comparing them to the USPS is a little off in my opinion.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

UPS and FED-EX will not provide universal service at the prices they do now, it is impossible.Are you that dense? Of course not, they can't provide the prices as does the USPS BECAUSE OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS prevent them. It is impossible.Now, under the socialized postal service, it is cheap because those who live in urban areas have to pay a little more for those in rural areas; otherwise, it would be exactly the same if otherwise privatized. More mail is sent in cities than rural areas; thus, more expensive for urban and less expensive for rural. That is why it is universal service.If privatization is what you want then you must accept this and tell a large percentage of the country that they will not receive anywhere near the delivery they now do.They would pay for what he costs if not subsidized by the urban areas.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

" Of course not, they can't provide the prices as does the USPS BECAUSE OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS prevent them."Are you that dense???, the only business that cannot change their prices without approval from Congress is the USPS. If UPS and Fed-Ex were immediately allowed to carry letters as you proposed and compete with the USPS, they WOULDN"T have that restriction. THEY can and do change their prices with the market possibly in a matter of days. It takes the USPS months to get a penny increase in a stamp. Are you that dense???????
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Are you that dense???, the only business that cannot change their prices without approval from Congress is the USPS. USPS is not a business. It is a quasi-government independent agency, which means it is government owned service but self sustaining revenue stream.The last post was to suggest that laws and regulations prevent any competition in first class mail, thus the prices will then always be higher in that current form, but if on a level playing field as I clearly mentioned before UPS and Fed Ex can change their prices with the market, but the USPS takes months because it is inefficient red tape toppled by mountains of protocol.Then, do you know understand why there is universal service? Why can UPS and Fed Ex be more efficient and effective because The Postal Service spends a whopping 78 percent of their budget on labor expenses alone, compared to 60 percent spent by United Parcel Service, and 40 percent spent by Fed Ex.Why would I be worried about loss of service?Think about what comes in the mail?First, most of the first class mail is junk and advertisement. Don't need that.Second, I have a email address. So, I don't need to send letters through the slow mail.Third, I can pay most of my bills online.Fourth, anything else can be handled by UPS and Fed Ex either first class or package.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

"Why can UPS and Fed Ex be more efficient and effective because The Postal Service spends a whopping 78 percent of their budget on labor expenses alone, compared to 60 percent spent by United Parcel Service, and 40 percent spent by Fed Ex."UNIVERSAL SERVICE----------------- If UPS and Fed-Ex had to provide universal service that would mean immediately what...............a much larger labor force. Any company that is the second largest in the country behind the military is going to have what, a large labor expense especially when mandated by the goverment on how to run that business."Think about what comes in the mail?First, most of the first class mail is junk and advertisement. Don't need that.Second, I have a email address. So, I don't need to send letters through the slow mail.Third, I can pay most of my bills online.Fourth, anything else can be handled by UPS and Fed Ex either first class or package."Now you see an individual whose only thought of is the here and now and truly only himself. He has an email address so the American public should just put up with not continuing to do business through the mail. Large businesses that testify in front of Congress that they would lose millions of dollars of business if the USPS even cuts out one day of service,no these Americans have to give this up because Prayerfails has an email account.Social security recipients be damned, Prayerfails has an email account. I know direct deposit right. Sorry, prayerfails says no USPS,you no longer receive your benefits through the mail.Why then PF, don't you mail you letters in a box through UPS, you know put some socks in it and send it through Fed-Ex and UPS?Boycott the USPS PF.