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

Indeed, Hoover's near communist policies caused too much government oversight (sarcasm)."The protectionist policies of all the world nearly halted all free trade."The protectionist policies of the laissez-faire capitalist presidents you mean? Hoover, Coolidge and Harding were all much more willing to raise our tariff than to lower it. Eventually the Hawley-Smoot Tariff (under Hoover) raised our tariff to 60%. Such a high rate was sure to decrease trade (leading partly to the eventual collapse of worldwide economies), and yet these three presidents were so keen on developing our industry and over-producing we flooded the markets."FDR's policies kept the unemployment rate rather high for over a decade. "Are you serious? The unemployment rate shrank from 25% in 1932 to 15% in 1939. And yet he only increased the national debt by about $20 million. Compared to the war effort for WWII, the New Deal took up much fewer resources and added much less to the national debt." And Bush's tax cuts spurred the largest peacetime expansion of the US economy. Your argument is flawed."And you can attribute peacetime expansion solely to his tax cuts how? Please explain how tax cuts and deregulation help the economy in the long run (because we are so prosperous now).It's been shown time and again that without government oversight or federal regulation the booms and busts of capitalism become relatively periodical. When the government began to take a greater interest in the economy, we were able to forestall immense financial setbacks by about four decades (until Reagan began the deregulation process). One could attribute the periodic nature of capitalism to the greed of its powerful constituents. People consistently overextend and soon they find that they have nothing beneath them to support themselves. We saw this with the housing market recently. We saw this with the banks. We saw this with Wall Street.(P.S. Do not downvote me because you do not agree with me. That is not the purpose of the point system. Down vote me for invalid logic, grammar, etc. You will notice I did not downvote you, although in your words "your argument is flawed")
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I will not downvote you, as you are quite respectable for showing me the courtesy first. I'll use a metaphor: let's say that there is a horse called the economy and if left without anything tying it down, or inhibiting it, it will go very far very fast. Occasionally it will stumble putting it in the vet's office for a week or two. And in order to prevent the horse from stumbling the owner ties it down, it still stumbles, not as hard because it isn't going as fast, but it takes longer to get it up because its body is impeded. It's the same with the economy inhibit it and you'll slow everything down. Also during the Hoover, Coolidge, Reagan, and Bush Jr., era we had prosperity. During the FDR, Carter, and Obama era we have busts. Also some of FDR's policies were human rights violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn  . How ridiculous is that? He had to destroy food while people were starving? And why did this depression last longer than all the others? Could it be because the government had too much control? I think so.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Let's see if I can use my own analogy:The economy is like Babe, the Giant Blue Ox running rampant in the streets of New York (without Paul Bunyan). Here he is, goring people left and right, destroying city property, and toppling skyscrapers. Now imagine Paul Bunyan is accompanying his ox. The Ox will occasionally misbehave, but generally, it is well behaved and its surrounding remain intact, alive, and well. It seems everyone is profiting from the control Bunyan has on Babe.See, everyone can make an analogy to suit their purpose. Now give me some real facts, not a made up story."Also during the Hoover...era we had prosperity"Hoover's presidency saw the Great Depression. Even he started to spend government funds to stem the tide of unemployment. Have you ever researched the Great Depression?"Coolidge...era we had prosperity"Coolidge's policies of extreme laissez faire were one of the main contributions to the Great Depression. Did you not read or respond to any of my points?"Reagan...era we had prosperity"Reagan had tax cuts and budget slashes that left it at $38 billion budget deficit and a $152 billion trade deficit. His tax cuts were to the large business owners to stimulate "supply side economics". Of course, we're still waiting for that trickle down effect. The rich-poor gap actually widened during his presidency. Overall, he increased American federal debt to $2 trillion, or to put it in perspective, more than all previous presidents' debts combined. Indeed, prosperity in the widening rich-poor gap."Bush Jr. era we had prosperity"Bush's economic policies were essentially the same as Reaganomics: tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. In addition to the tax cuts were the deregulation. Certainly, there was short term prosperity, but eventually that bubble had to burst. Now we see first hand the effects of the "prosperity" of the Bush Jr. era: some of the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression (15 million about at around 9.7%), our debt steadily climbing to $13 trillion (much of that climb was during Bush's presidency, not Obama's), and the income gap has nearly doubled since 1980. How ridiculous is that?And why did the Depression last longer than all the others? Could it be because the government did not spend enough (until WW2)? I think so.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I'm starting to think your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who thinks of "prosperity" when they think of the Hoover administration surely hasn't read their history books. There is a reason why an empty pocket pulled inside-out was colloquially known as a "Hoover flag". Haha!
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I am wondering that myself. Even though the Depression ocured during Hoover's administration, I think it is unfair to lay the blame solely on him. The blame should be more spread out to his predecessors as well. I wonder if Cicero has ever heard of "Hoover-villes", the shanty towns by the new-homeless of the Depression.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I am wondering if Conro has heard of FDR's interment camps. They are about the socalist equivalent, except you can never leave one.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Indeed I had. His internment camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII? I definitely do not agree with them, but if you analyze the political backdrop, one can easily see FDR's reasoning (this in no way justifies them, just an analysis): 1) Eugenics is at its height as well as American exceptionalism (well, perhaps modern times takes that trophy), so the newcoming Japanese, all too eager to work the jobs Americans wouldn't work would be inferior. and 2) We are at war with Japan. As such, public sentiment is against those of Japanese descent. One may argue that the Germans, Italians, and others were also at war, but their American counterparts were not sent to internment camps. To this I reply that those countries were European. Due to the white supremecy thoughts of that time, the Japanese were barbarians, whilst the Germans and Italians were integral parts of the American culture.The post was a little long-winded for your short quip, but I must ask what this has to do with Capitalism vs Socialism.P.S. The prisoners were released after WWII and were compensated $38 million (total) as well as issued a formal apology.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I'm sorry. I didn't mean Hoover that was a typo. I meant Warren G. Harding. Same H letter. That is quite a blow to my argument. I'm not tagging this as capitalism because it is just a clarification.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Your analogy doesn't take into account that the animal wants what is best for itself. Why would it destroy things randomly? And your Bunyan is lawsuits and court orders not government regulation.Hoover eraSorry I meant Harding. You're right Hoover did see the Great Depression.Coolidge's policies of extreme laissez faire were one of the main contributions to the Great DepressionFDR's (and Hoover's) policies were the main reason the depression lasted for so long.widening the rich poor gapYes but their wealth is increasing at the same percentage rate. $40000 + 10% is $44000 while $60000 + 10% is $66000. So the gap is increasing but everyone's wealth is too.could it be because we didn't spend enoughWeren't you listening when I mentioned the Depression of 1920-21? According to the Von Mises Institute: http://mises.org/daily/3788
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

You are anthropomorphizing the animal. The animal does what it does. It does not know the value of people or real estate. And you are mistaken: Bunyan is most clearly the regulations. How often have you heard of people suing an animal? I've heard suing of owners, never of animals."FDR's (and Hoover's) policies were the main reason the depression lasted for so long."First of all, offer a proof/warrant/data to support your claim, otherwise I have no obligation to refute. Second, we only saw the end to the Depression when we mobilized for World War II. That was when the Federal debt was increased, but government jobs (temporary) were created in the factories and the front lines. We can logically infer that, indeed, it was Roosevelt's policies that prolonged the Depression, but not in the sense you wish. It was he did not spend enough."Yes but their wealth is increasing at the same percentage rate. $40000 + 10% is $44000 while $60000 + 10% is $66000. So the gap is increasing but everyone's wealth is too."Where do these numbers come from? I have data a bit more grim: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29iht-income.4.5075504.html  The data shows that the "top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980" and "average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent". Here's another piece of data: "The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005". Read for yourself.Ultimately your argument has strayed from the "Capitalism vs Socialism" debate into "What created and ended the Depression". As such it is inappropriate to debate this matter here unless you reel it back in to the original debate. Certainly American history is good evidence for the debate, so perhaps you should draw some conclusions about the two systems. I am not required to do so, merely defend myself against your "refutations".
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

My argument against Rossevelt's policies was the link to the Von Mises institute which you didn't care to refute. Once again http://mises.org/daily/3788 Unemployment went from 4% to 12% in 1920 so Harding cut the budget and taxes. In 1921 unemployment went to 6.7% and in 1923 went to 2.4%. Where under Roosevelt's policies unemployment wasn't that low, and the depression he dealt with lasted for more than 7 years after taking office.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I'll refute now I suppose:Correlation doesn't mean causation. First you must look at the two depressions in different lights: the depression in 1920 was after a World War, and the Depression of 1929 was due to trade imbalances, over speculation, over production, and too much unbacked credit.To fully understand the differences between these situations, you must realize that the two cannot be compared very easily.As the depression in 1920 was after a War, one could readily see that as hundreds of thousands of troops return home, a huge surge in the civilian workforce would naturally correlate with a shortage of jobs, artificially spiking the unemployment. Additionally, the surge in workers would be accompanied by lower wages as well as decreasing output in factories. Indeed, these three occured as we moved from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy (vastly different). Another cause of the depression of 1920 was the Federal Reserve (newly created) that raised interest rates rather sharply. This caused a period of deflation and when the Reserve lowered rates the depression finished rather quickly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920â€“21) The Depression in 1929 was during a peacetime economy however. Those who lost their jobs really lost them and the rate was not artificially high due to returning soldiers. In fact, over the course of the Depression, Roosevelt lowered the unemployment rate by 2/3. He lowered it by about 25% in 1933 (really, "unemployment wasn't that low"?) to about 9% in 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States ). The massive spending up to the wartime economy of WWII is what pulled America out of the Depression. I hope you can see the essential differences between the two Depressions and how it would be difficult to compare them as having similar solutions (let alone the same solutions would have worked as you state).And yet again, I have to ask you to get back on topic. Remember the purpose of the debate!
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You do raise valid points, and I will get back on topic. Two countries: the USA, arguably the most capitalistic society in the world, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. The USA has lasted for 234 years and is still going. The USSR lasted less than 100 years, and collapsed. One of its satellite states Estonia embraced capitalism after socialism fell and has benefited greatly. From 1994 to 2008 the infant mortality rate dropped from 19.1 deaths per 1000 births to 7.5 per 1000. In 1990 20% of Estonia's workforce was in agriculture and forestry, by 1999 they diversified and only 10% are involved in agriculture and forestry. In 1993 Estonia's GDP per capita was $5480, in 2007 it was $21000. Thats an annual compound growth rate of 10%.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I could make the same argument for any number of countries. Just as many countries suffered from the fall of the USSR as those that prospered, Including the Russian federation itself. Also one might point out that the USSR was more of a Communist state than a socialist state.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I fail to see the difference between communism and socialism. Please explain it to me before we continue.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I fail to see the difference between communism and socialism.Sadly neither do most Americans either. Which is why we see the term so often abused in political debates.The USSR was communist, Sweden is Socialist.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Does the distinction matter if both of their cars suck? Volvo is probably one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever been in. IKEA is just evil. I like the USSR more because they never made such crap, and shipped it here. They kept it over there.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Socialism doesn't work because IKEA is evil? Am I supposed to take this argument seriously?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

That's not what I'm arguing. I said that they're indistinguishable because that they both produce crap. All I see of foreign nations is the stuff they make for me to use.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

The quality of their manufactured goods, has absolutely NOTHING to do with relative prosperity, overall well-being, civil liberties etc... This is a terrible argument. Surely you must have a better argument than this, yes?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Ok ok. Sweden, and I'm assuming the other Nordic states are exceptions to the rule that socialism will eventually fail. Greece became bankrupt. Many socialist countries in Europe have to cut their budget if they want to keep the government alive. I'm still not sure why Sweden doesn't collapse under her own weight, but most other nations are or have.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Yes, America is prosperous. But surveys say we have fewer friends than ever, and that financial prosperity does not make one more satisfied with life. And yes, we benefit from better products and services, but the capitalist mutant advertisement has become has convinced people to keep wasting their lives saving for the next piece of shit they absolutely don't need.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

but we enjoy it... is it really wasting our lives when we use something we enjoy so much?I play the PS3, and i definetely know that it was not a waste of time or money to buy.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Anecdotal Evidence. You might be perfectly content, but I'm talking about the average person.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

you're claiming that they're wasting their lives... that's actually worse.they don't believe they are, and they enjoy it. just cause YOU think THEY are wasting their lives, doesn't mean THEY think THEY are.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

And just because they don't think they are, that doesn't mean they aren't. Yes, there are people who will be perfectly happy and psychologically healthy leading money-driven lives. But living in America, where capitalism reigns, can convince pretty much anyone that that is all there is to life, that money and possessions equal success and contentment. So nearly everyone in America dedicates his life to his career, and to "moving up the ladder," confident that this will mean a happier life. But above the level of poverty, money does little to make people any happier.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

but that's all a matter of personal opinion. achievement is what people in a capitalist world want. they want to work for their goals so they can get that sense of achievement. same reason why volunteering makes some of us feel good because it's something we do on free will.if they're happy, how are they "wasting" their lives.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

It's not personal opinion. These are the results of polls and surveys.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Your a big fat shit brain. Za Socialismus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I prefer Capitalism for two reasons.1. Don't like the idea of a government controlling what's supposed to be private.2. Competition and greed produce better products than government work. Look at government workers... they don't give a shit about making shit better for you, but private corporations will work as hard as they can to keep you as their customer.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

1. Socialism is not the government controlling 'what's supposed to be private'. This is rubbish on two counts. One it assumes "stuff that's meant to be private" and wrongly equates it with property. And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism. If you have bothered to read anything by the German/Dutch left-communists you would know this.2. Socialism and Capitalism aren't 'systems of governemnt' you can compare side by side and choose the better one. Socialism is the real expression of working class oppression and the historic tendency toward it's realisation. Go read a book and come back when you have half a brain.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

1. In what ay do I need to be more specific about the German/Dutch Left-Communist current.2. If a non-communist does not know what I am talking about they can gladly go look it up an learn something.3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'.4. Where did I ever write that the state has no role in the transition of society? Your quoting of the manifesto to prove a non-point to myself is of no use.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

You might as well be saying "I am right, they should know why I am right, screw them for being stupid". That isn't debating; back up your statements with facts, quotes, references; anything. I can't just say "American scientists say that global warming is real". Without references to what American scientists, what reports..etc...then it is likely I am making it up or misrepresenting their view. It also isn't up to the other side to research your points for you. You can't go up to someone you are debating and tell them "I am right; there are people that say I am right, go research it if you don't believe me!". That is intellectually dishonest, lazy, and not conducive to a real debate.You cannot indirectly quote a mass of people without anything you are referencing to. You might as well say "according to Communists Capitalism will wither away in the 21st century". Describing what nations they come from hardly helps as it is likely that there is more than one point of view. As far as I know there is no such thing as a single Dutch or German Left-Communism that monolithically stands without needing to be referenced. Is there some sort of handbook I missed out on at the meetings? Are the German-Dutch Left-Communists the only valid Communists, why?Who are these German/Dutch Left-Communists? What are their names? What are some of their writings that back up what you are saying? You don't think such trivial things are needed in a debate?"3. If a communist doesn't know what I'm talking about, well I quite frankly would question their 'communism'."This sort of arrogance is common with my comrades; it is sad how many of you see fit to hold the mantle of Communist pope and excommunicate anyone who doesn't fit the mold you have envisioned for what we are, what we do, and who we read.It may be that I have read the people you are referring to, but I do not understand the rather vague references you have put forth. You don't see fit to explain; of course, that would be beneath someone so expert in the realm of Communism-dom.If you continue to "debate" in the following manner, constantly spouting off rhetoric without anything backing you up, I'll consider this the end of my debate with you. You can go on ranting and railing against this or that "idiot" who should "know better" all you want, you can leave me out of that. "And two, and more importantly, socialism has nothing to do with government control. That is what we call state capitalism."Karl Marx flatly states that the government will control a good number of things; bringing education, transportation, communication, and other services under its direct administration. He also says that it will confiscate the property of emigrants and rebels. So, yes, you did indicate that Socialism has nothing to do with government control (you said that specifically); that is completely opposite of what Karl Marx says. I don't know if Karl Marx is following Dutch-German Left-Communism; perhaps he is not Communist enough for you either.