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

Your link lead me to a "page not found" error.Ok, so we're not talking pure capitalism or socialism. We're talking about something in between. So it's either China's free market model of socialism or the rest of the world's regulated capitalism then? Well, China is quickly becoming a more productive country, but they're certainly not producing more than the US. I don't know where you're basing your stats on but their GDP certain is not as high as America's.Where would you rather live? In the rest of the free world or in China? One of the main reasons I don't go for Socialism (even Chinese modern socialism) is that it requires a dictatorial approach to government. You can't have socialism without having TOTAL control. I'd rather regulated capitalism any day. If they're similar in economic results, I'd go for the one where I don't get imprisoned for saying something bad against the government :)
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I'm sorry about the link. For some reason, it included a period I accidentally put after the sentence.http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/socmeans.htm That should fix it I hope.The U.S. trade data: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=u.s.+trade The Chinese trade data: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+trade Notice the difference: U.S. balance is -$425.5 billion whereas Chinese balance is +$368.2 billion. That indicates greater export:import ratio which means more production."One of the main reasons I don't go for Socialism (even Chinese modern socialism) is that it requires a dictatorial approach to government. You can't have socialism without having TOTAL control."You're a little flawed in this reasoning. Total control is necessary by the GOVERNMENT in PURE socialism. Just like total anarchy is necessary in PURE capitalism. But as we were talking about, it seems virtually impossible for such pure societies to exist. Also, it doesn't require a dictatorial approach. It can still have duly elected representatives, and a president, or a parliament, or prime minister. The thing it does is help prevent the corporations and big businesses from hurting customers, workers, and ordinary people. In fact, I think socialism would work BETTER with a parliament or congress rather than a president or prime minister (because of humanity's natural tendency to be corrupted by absolute power). That's one reason why I like Plato's Republic. When there's a congress or parliament, it curtails the imprisonment, enriches a citizen's life, regulates the power of corporations, increases jobs, provides stability, and numerous other attributes can be attributed to a stable socialist government/economy.Also, as the data seems to indicate, there is a pretty huge difference economically between socialist China and capitalist America. It's not just some petty difference you can discount.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You're looking at trade data my friend, that's not production. You make 10 pairs of shoes, but if you only trade 2 pairs for apples, get it? Look at GDP.The wonderful socialism structure you speak of, where is it? Does it exist without a dictatorial government? I'm looking at China and Vietnam and both countries have a dictatorial communist government where elections are a joke!Stop talking theories. Regulated capitalism rules :)
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

The thing is that it doesn't exist right now. But we are more than capable of moving towards that better society. I know it will sound cheesy, but if we don't ever try to achieve socialism (not a dictatorial socialist society but a democratic socialist society), it won't ever come about. Sure there were attempts at some form of socialism, but it was never attempted with selfless intentions, i.e. the leader of the "revolution" would always claim power afterwards. European nations are the closest to the true socialist agenda, e.g. France and the Netherlands, but they still have a long way to go.How are we to measure success? For Capitalists, it's money. In a Capitalist society, to improve the health of the country, the main religion must be materialism. Materialism is healthy for no one. For Socialists, it's human happiness. In a Socialist society one is able to achieve what one wishes to do, not necessarily what pays the most. I don't know about you, but it seems there is WAY less pressure to be "successful" (in the Capitalist sense) in a Socialist society. That decrease in pressure would be inversely proportional to the mental stability and happiness of the society. I would rather be happy than rich, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

What is your objection to regulated capitalism?Your opinion that we should strive towards democratic socialism is nice, but humans are not ants or bees or termites. We're capable of individualism. Your socialist state would have to require dictatorship enforcement otherwise it'll fail. Attempts at democratic socialism in the past have failed for precisely this reason. There'll always be individuals who won't subscribe to the system, who are motivated by greed, success, selfishness, it's human, you and I, we're the same. There's less pressure to be successful in a Socialist society? Have you been to China? Anyone who's been there will tell you that people strive to study every chance they get, and work many jobs. Kids are forced into school and then extra-curricula activities (which are actually more schools). They make the busiest Westerners look lazy...
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

My objection to regulated capitalism is basically that it's not as good as a democratic socialist system could be. It wouldn't require a dictatorship, just an educated populace to be able to realize when they are being abused.In our society, we are also bread to be uber competitive at a young age. Schooling and getting into good colleges are perhaps the most obvious example. We flaunt ourselves, do tons of extra-curricular activities, and then hope that the thousands of other people who did the exact same thing don't get in, but we do. Then we try to earn a degree in a field where we'll always be competing against. Then as we try to be "successful" we compete against our colleagues for pay-raises, promotions, and better jobs. That sounds like a lot of pressure to me.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The only places where socialism has truly worked is in places it's used in CONJUNCTION with capitalism. Pure socialism always fails.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I tried to force myself to read all the post and failed. I have witnessed capitalism and now ready for something else. Capitalism is wasteful. Do you know how much labor and resources are wasted in a capitalistic environment? Take the follow example: The trucking industry, aboard those trucks coming and going are the same product. A company in Chicago trucks its goods to New York and a company in New York ships its goods to Chicago. This is the same product made by two different companies. Competition, good for the consumer? We just added cost to a product because it is a free for all. Both companies have contracts to deliver goods, neither one will work to reduce the cost of labor and transportation. This happens all the time. The same thing happens with people commuting to work. You drive an hour to work and pass someone on the road driving an hour to work the other direction. Capitalism is wasteful. A waste of resources, man or other wise.Socialism should employ people closer to their living and use products produced locally. A benefit to all and not a few.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Both

Socialism is the good, IF and only IF it is properly carried out, if the people at the early stages are even the slightest bit corrupt then you can kiss it goodbye. Since a good socialism is almost completely out of the picture at this point, however, I am perfectly fine living in my capitalist society…My favorite working model so far is the kind like they use in northern Europe, with a capitalism under-structure but many facets of life socialized, which, for the most part, is the "best of both worlds"
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Extremes of either Capitalism or Socialism can run into problems. Since the current economic depression was caused by out-of-control Capitalism and "fixing" the problem within a capitalistic framework is going to cause "pain" - such as job losses, along with loss of basic support for food, housing and health insurance - I must side with Socialism which would provide basic support for everyone, even when jobs are scarce.I personally believe that capitalism got out-of-control because we allowed private interests to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few people. This provided them with the means to unduely influence our elected officials. After using their wealth to run advertisements (or even buy the media) they could also unduely influence us and sway the public as a whole.When wealth is concentrated to the point where those who have it cannot find productive investments, they start gambling. Rather than gamble in casinos, they gamble with the stock market. They invest heavily in one sector of the market - causing prices to rise, and kicking off a bubble in that sector. When the bubble approaches the top, they sell of their assets, causing prices to drop and bursting the bubble. Since the last people into the market are usually middle-class investors with limited time and experience, they don't realize how the bubble was created (or that there even is a bubble). They also lack the time and expertise to properly evaluate the market so as to leave with a minimum of loss. Instead, they are the ones who lose their hard-earned wealth to those from whom they bought their investments. This is nothing more than fraud.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

"I personally believe that capitalism got out-of-control because we allowed private interests to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few people"From Babylon to each and every nation today, wealth and power has been in the hands of a few. Why just say capitalism got out of control because of this?Name one place where socialism raised the standard of living for all of it's people?
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Cons of CapitalismSome consider the fierce competition brought about by capitalism as its major drawback. They believe that a capitalist economy can give rise to unfair competition.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Cons of CapitalismCapitalism makes an economy money-oriented. Business corporations look at the economy with a materialistic point of view. Profitability remains their only primary business goal. Business giants take over smaller companies. Employment rights are compensated with the sole aim of higher productivity.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Cons of CapitalismThere are different views about capitalism. Some believe in its strengths, while others complain about the unfair distribution of wealth it may lead to. A mixed economy can perhaps serve as the golden mean.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

All capitalism is is promoteing peoples welfare. Helping the poor and rich. NOT hurting the rich.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Advantages Of Socialism A Fair SystemSocialism gives equal distribution of national wealth and provides everyone with equal opportunities, irrespective of their, color, caste, creed or economic status. Socialism, in its truest sense, means equality by all means
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Not fair to the rich hard working .
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

everyone works and they get to keep the money they get for their labor and the surplus value goes to the state so that EVERYONE has healthcare, food and shelter. The money you get for labor is to be spent on luxuries.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

i support socilism because you know people then have to pay their fair share of taxes and the gouverment had more power and far more oversight over buincess and companies espiscally large compines
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Reducing DisparitiesSocialism reduces the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist within capitalist societies. By taking the ownerships of production units from the rich and presenting them to the workers, the government gives the workers a chance to earn more profits and thus rise to levels of economic well being
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

There is no profit in socialism. There is no motive to innovate, or to better oneself. Why innovate or better yourself if you are just going to be compensated the same as if you hadn't bothered? Socialism doesn't equally distribute the wealth, it equally distributes the misery. The only we can all be the same is if we all are at the lowest common denominator. Socialism will never work because society doesn't want to be a bunch of automatons. Socialism can never provide the disparate goods and services that people desire, because we all don't desire the same thing. I might like my widget to be medium sized and blue, but somebody else might like their's to be small and red. Socialism does not allow for the different widgets, because the central planners (elites), which socialism depends on, can not take into account human desire and plan accordingly. Now if you can figure out a way to control our thoughts and desires, than socialism would be a spectacular success for those doing the controlling. If the choice is between fat cat robber baron capitalist pigs or mind controlling, individuality smashing, socialist elitists, I'll take my chances with the pigs.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Who says being having inequalities is bad .
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Creates Better Human ResourcesAs all people, irrespective of their differences, are provided extensive public services and better facilities, they achieve their full potential. Better education facilities for all also help in creating better human resource. Manpower doubles, thus doubling the country’s economic growth, as everyone works towards a life of betterment.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

UnityAs people work for a common cause and all the profits are shared equally, the feeling of selfishness is eliminated and a united feeling is gained. Plus, since socialism bars the difference caused on the grounds of color, sex, creed or religion, harmony and unity become the keywords for the countrymen.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The poor who get money of the rich are the most selfish .
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Socialism is human nature. Humans naturally work together. Socialism is morally correct. Capitlism, however, puts man against man. This is negitive.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

I don't really have a lot of time, I'll be quick. IFBUSINESS<HUMANITYTHENCAPITALISM<SOCIALISMOR IFHUMANITY<BUSINESSTHENSOCIALISM<CAPITALISMI love humanity.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Socialism has been branded as a "moral" system, but only in advertisement. Indeed, there have been attempts to brand capitalism with some ethical foundation (I think it is the fairer and more democratic for example) but with less success. Ultimately though, it is fallacy to judge them based on how they've been branded because the systems themselves are detached from subjective meaning. Socialism is about centralization and the public sector (state owned), and capitalism is about decentralization and the private sector (people owned). The reason it should be looked at objectively is because anyone can do what you did and get different results. EX. Collectivism < Individualism = Capitalism, or Coercion < Self Determination = Capitalism etc.Socialism is truly a road paved with good intentions. It is a system based on ethical assumptions instead of empirical data, which is why Bono and his UN economist friend Jeffery Sachs (who is no right-winger) and along with all the most community, advocate liberalization to eliminate poverty like it has in India, China, Bolivia, and Poland. Sachs also advised reforms in Russia, for example, but they failed because of a corrupt reluctance to decentralize government, further illustrating the failings of socialist and protectionist economies which have historically always failed. So, myself - I support capitalism because I feel it is not only the more philosophically just economy, but also because the productivity it unleashes is the only known way to raise the tide and the living standards of the population. I think its rather niave and superficial (and romantic) to reject capitalism, particularly when its raised so many people out of poverty when implemented correctly, provided radically new innovations that continue to benefited us, and has generally made places with capitalism freer, more democratic, and wealthier. Ironically, mostly wealthy western democrats and dictators are socialists anymore.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I agree with you, and the general attraction to the freedom in USA was based on our democracy..the chance for a better future. The Democrat party leans toward socialism, and in theory, the Republicans toward capitalism. It amazes me though to see the wealthy leaning toward socialism and more and more of it filtering into our country..Social Security, Medicare, and maybe Universal Health care in our near future. The problem is with our middle (and upper middle) class who work 46 weeks/yr (avg), 30-50 years until retirement and are taxed hardest to "share".
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Socialism

Every Socialist economy has "always failed"? According to what standards? According to what measurements? What is "failure"? Was the Soviet Union a failure? By all accounts, even though its economy was marginally less productive than the West's, its people enjoyed a standard of living in parity with "Capitalist" west. Not only that, but the Soviet Union had an extremely late start; industrialization had taken hold in the United States and Britain hundreds of years before the peasantry in the USSR had traded their plows for wrenches. Is Cuba a failure? Despite economic catastrophe when all of its major trading partners disappeared, almost over night; its people's standard of living are in parity with those of the United States and countries with gargantuan economic systems.The more Socialist Euro-nations economies develop at a slightly slower rate than the United State's, but their people are healthier happier, better educated, and enjoy greater benefits than those in the United States.The United States' economy itself has only increased in Socialization, in government control, since the 1930s, yet its economy has developed fantastically since that time and its people have become remarkably prosperous.Lastly; if the society was a Democratic Socialist Centralized economy it would be far more "people owned" than a Capitalist economy. The whole of the population would have a say in how the economy is run, not a handful of wealthy businessmen and landlords. Of course; that's only if you implement a society based on centralized principles instead of a decentralized cooperative economy. The USSR, Cuba, and Maoist China, among others, used only a brand of Socialism; an extremely militaristic Centralized brand. It is, of course, good for some situations but has some extreme defects. In most cases, the failures of Socialism in the past can be laid at the feet of those nations which buck Democracy and turn to Totalitarianism. Of course, we'd have more examples of democratic Socialism had it not been for U.S. intervention in Latin America and the USSR's policy towards events like the "Prague Spring".Hugo Chavez, though, a Democratic Socialist, has certainly improved Venezuela's situation. The Venezuelan people's standard of living has increased significantly since his presidency began and will, hopefully, continue to do so.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Even if the comparisons, as your correctly point out, are not analogous between say, England and Russia, or America and Russia, or what have you, the issue originally being addressed was your egregious claim that the communist bloc lived "in parity" with the west in terms of living standards. I showed conclusively that you were mistaking growth for living standards, and that in every respect they were worse off than the west (whether you blame it on collectivism, totalitarianism, war, or all of the above). This is the only claim I addressed and it's one that remains unsubstantiated.Furthermore, much of the health problems in Russia today are due to alcoholism and other bad health habits that arose out of a cultural heritage and the Soviets collapse. It's pretty clear that if Vodka didn't exist, Russians might be living a lot longer. You also failed to address the undeniable empirical evidence of Russia economic and domestic successes in the last decade as they begin to crawl out of the communist abyss. Instead you chose to use rhetoric, and a surprisingly amount of it too.Finally, I believe that America's health is actually very high with the exception of things like obesity which bare more on the culture than its amount of health services. The same paper I posted earlier from my "propaganda outlet" runs through many of the criteria WHO and other organizations use to assess nations health status, and also scrutinizes some of the figures commonly parroted by pessimists. This, as you said, should be taken elsewhere if we want to debate it.
Debate: Capitalism vs Socialism
Side: Capitalism

Following the collapse and transition recession Russians suffered dramatically. They are only beginning to come out of it (see the earlier post). It isn't just the wealthy and the banks either. It's the average citizen whose income has increased 50% and it the poor when it says "millions have been lifted out of poverty".All additional information you can find in previous posts."They were behind the United States and many other western nations..."This is all I wanted to hear.