azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I don't believe humans can survive a "transition" that kills of species after species of both plants and animals. We are part of a web of life...and are hacking away at the environment that supports both them and us.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

That's why we need genetically modified food, so that we can survive all alone.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Having any food at all, genetically modified or not, is not being "alone." It is being with our environmentally damaging genetically modified food.The discussion is, after all, about the rapid eradication of animal and plant life.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I meant if all animal life becomes extinct by humans and their destructive habits.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Please show me something that says we or plant life could survive in such an environment.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I think you are misunderstanding the gist of my argument. I was being facetious, saying that humans are sure to destroy all nonhuman life on earth and resort to the consumption of genetically engineered foodstuffs.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Ah, I see. Facetious huh? Thanks for clearing that up.------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The assumption that anything humans do is not part of nature or unnatural is false. We are a part of the Earth and its environment as much as any other living creature and apparently we got here much the same way, too (through evolution). We weren't unnaturally thrown into the mix of things here on Earth were we? Termites build homes out of earth mounds and timber. We build homes from cement and bricks and steel. Our infrastructures are home to lots of rats and other living things, nothing unnatural about human activities at all.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I completely agree. Just like when some one says somethings unnatural. It ordinal came from nature, we just changed it. Sorry for changing the subjected.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I agree their is nothing unnatural about what we do. But we are stealing the homes of the animals, plants, insects, whatever that was living their before us, so we should at least be kindful enough to contribute in builiding them more homes. Besides, you wouldn't like it if I knocked down your house, took over land, and left you standing their with the clothes on your back.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

You are plain wrongThere are as many symbiotic relationships in nature, as there are species in nature. That is - Animals help each other out all the time (flower pollens get distributed by cows (who shit it in fertile ground), birds serve as warning signalers for other animals, some animals, both in sea and on land serve as cleaners for bigger animals, and in return get to eat what they clean - all sorts of mutual growth buisness goes on in nature.Saying that "Evolution teaches the survival of the fittest" is as good a summary of the theory og Evolution as saying that Einsteins theory of relativity says "that everything is realtive"These are oversimplifications and the reason your statement still keeps lurking in popular culture is because of a political theory called Social Darwinism, that simplified evolutionary theory to justify its actions (usually actions of shitting on people, in so many words). Social Darwinism is close to a dead theory but there are always radical groups who bring it up occasionally.I point this out because alot of the arguments Creationists bring up time and time again are arguments against this simplified theory of evolution.Like I said somwhere here before, evolitionary theory does not simply say that the "fittest survive" but rather the species most apt to deal with its current environment (that is "most fit" in that relative sense) is most likely to survive, but then environments change. So "fittest" has a context, and is not meant to be taken in a general sense. very small factors (like flu epidemics that rush up) can have a drastic effect on an animal that in all other respects (armour, speed, big jaws) has advantages. So unpredictable small changes have great consequences and randomly shake up the grounds we use to calculate "fittness"As a side note it is important to realize that in many cases the greatest assets a species can have for survival is its symbiotic realtionship with diverse nature. (so that it doesnt put all its eggs in one basket, so to speak: like just depending on the size of ones jaws for example.)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Yumm! Vennison is sooooo tasty! mmmm! my mouth just waters when I think about it!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Eventually we will master genetic engineering and bring them all back ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Sometimes that's not enough. Sometimes once something is gone it may be gone forever. We humans are destroying what we have. We abuse what we are given. Only selfish people have a blind eye to the dying world and I am not one of the selfish ones like you. I try to help the world by doing my job. I recycle, reuse, reduce and spread the word of the three r's. Apparently I have more brains that you do.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

You know, Moonpup, you're probably a good person but you haven't taken the time to fill out your profile, so I'll never know!Either way, each and every living thing on this planet contains, within itself, the building blocks necessary for creating every other living thing. According to evolution, we are all related.So all we have to do is create something that resembles what it once was. We don't have to be exact because it really doesn't matter. Many animals and plants have become extinct, even before humans walked the Earth, and it has not had a lasting negative effect.And if you're a creationist..., well then..., God should be able to bring them all back. And as far as your "dying" planet comment..., the planet has sustained multiple mass extinctions and every time, life came back. And even if this time life doesn't come back to this planet, the stuff of life can travel on meteors to other planets and seed them with life.But regardless..., you just keep on doing your job ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

For many species for those multiple extinctions. When those multiple extinctions occurred there were some species left that blossomed from those surviving species. I am a good person. I am sorry I haven't filled out my profile. I've been busy with my book project. It's Moondog not Moonpup. I'm just saying.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

So think of it as some species giving another species a chance to flourish ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

When I say dying planet I mean something time nor evolvoution nor mother nature can fix.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Something that catastrophic is beyond our control. ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

No it's not! Even if you just reuse, reduce, and recycle you can still save endangered animals. It keeps the dart healthy and clean and then there is no trash to kill off important animals!!!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

If you really want to reduce something that may have the effect you describe, reduce the world's human population. Apparently humans are not as important. ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I meant paper, glass, cans, and other recyclable things that can be reduced, reused and recycled. Are you really that stupid to not know those things can be reused, reduced and recycled?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Oh I understood exactly what you meant, Moonpup.What you don't seem to get is this:Let's say we "reduce, reuse and recycle paper, glass, cans, and other recyclable things..." the world's population will continue to increase. So your "reduction" will continue to increase past the point deemed "acceptable." I'm embarrassed to have to connect such obvious dots for you. Hey! You have 48 points! How cute ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

It Moondog not Moonpup. Why can't Oi get my user name straight? Oh let me guess you are trying to be a joker well that is not flying by me.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Oh, I see... You must be new.Joe IS the jokester of Createdebate. You can't change that. Trust me.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Yeah I am new so I did not know that Joe is the jokes get of createadebate. Thanks for that tip.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Well..., that's no reason to get all bent out of shape over it ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Other species don't help save our people who are dying, why should we try and save theirs?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

We depend on other animals for things like fur, wool and food. What do mean what do other species do? That's how. We can't just kill off the endangered animals. It's the human race's fault so many animals are in endangered and dying off quickly. The human race is the one to cut down all the forests for stupid things. All those chopped down forests were once habitats and the green leaves on the trees in the forest were once used photosynthesis that makes 6 oxygen molecules and C6H12O6 (Glucose) we need air. Plants need the carbon we expell from our lungs. We work together to create more life and the cycle goes on and on and what am I rambling about?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Messing with nature's process of elimination will only slow things down. Leave it alone and let the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

You seem to assume that it is written in some higher law (I wonder where that idea came from) that some species should survive and others not.and in talking about how saving endengered species can "slow things down" you also seem to assume that evolution is heading in a predefined direction to some sort of rapture (I wonder also where that idea came from).The theory of evolution is not a scientific version of bible prophecy.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace introduced Natural Selection. That's where it all came from.I personally believe in God. But Evolutionists should not only stop saving endangered species, they should even speed up the process!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Let me get this straight-do you belive that natural selection happens on the account of some agency that makes it happen? "evolutionists should not only stop saving endangered species, they should even speed up the process!" Speed up what process? Do you belive that Evolution has "a plan" for the things it evolves? I think you are stuck on the Idea that Evolution is some sort of intellegent agency (an invisible hand or god of some sorts)You are anthropomorphizing simple natural pheonomena.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I personally believe that evolution is a process created by God (and so I'm a theistic evolutionist). I personally believe that all species should be saved. However, that is not my position in this debate. I've chosen the side that doesn't believe in God.Evolution is a process that scientists have observed when studying biology and history and whatever else... they call the process evolution, they didn't make evolution, so there's no agent involved (according to the evolutionists). The process of elimination that naturally occurs in nature has been coined Natural Selection by Darwin and that other guy. And like you said it's a simple natural phenomena, and I haven't humanized it. It's what happens in nature, naturally! If we try to stop it, isn't that going against that natural process?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

It's what happens in nature, naturally! If we try to stop it, isn't that going against that natural process?: ) I like that question, I think it touches on quite a big conundrum that is facing us today. - That is - we tend to assume that there is a great big difference between "artifical "and "natural", and it is commonly assumed that things humans produce are artifical and things that are produced by non-human agency´s are natural. I dont think "natural process" has a goal in mind. I dont see nature giving out signals of where it is heading. And concerning the statistics I would have to assume that "nature" is pretty random (75% of all matter is supposed to be dark matter - that is; unacountable ). So I dont think there is such a thing as going against nature, for nature (meaning outside effects) doesnt seem to have an angle. I think our minds are the pinnacle of evolution - No thing before the human mind could calculate and produce as much data in less time before (computers are gaining ground on us , so this is not a settled issue :) -So our minds (i think) are in a sense a natural process.judging what species should live and what species shouldnt is a hard question, for it is obvious that we cant save them all, but I dont think it is any special reason for "Evolutionists" to be against saving some endagnered species.Thinking that the theory of evolution gives out any such pedegrees is confusing the theory of evolution with "social Darwinism" ( a political theory) like I said before
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I agree that how our mind works is natural, and some people's mind wants them to save the endangered species. I don't think natural selection has a specific goal in mind, but one can take a look at history and how things have evolved and deduce that it seems to be taking living beings on a certain journey and it seems that at any given point in time, the creatures that exist are those best at the game of survival at that point in time. So at a point in time in the very far future some millions of years from now, you could probably say that the Earth may have a super super intelligent dominant species that is super super adapted to its environment physically... given that the Earth hasn't been destroyed or its environment hasn't changed drastically (because that would change everything).I don't even want to open the can of worm that is social Darwinism, I don't think it's relevant to this topic.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

That's why there are aids in Africa.=]------------------------------------
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Problem is that most of them aren't dying because of "nature's process" but rather Human intervention. They are dying not because they aren't great hunters, breed to slowly, etc. They are dying because men leveled their envirmoent, destroyed their food, or simply killed them for fur, oils, meat, etc.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I agree with this but I do not agree wih that we should let endangered animals die. We do not know everything and we maybe shouldn't. We should think about the future and how we can save the world not kill it.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

They're dying because we're the more dominant species and we're more successful at survival than them, we're so good at surviving our population has to be controlled. Sure, they're good hunters and whatever, but we're much better! So no, they're not dying out because they're not good at what they do, they're dying out because we're just better... Plants that are better at survival will outgrow and suffocate those that aren't as strong, killing them. Same with animals. The more dominant species will dominate! It's natural to destroy the environments of other species.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Human beings are certainly the most arrogant and self righteous of all species.As far as hunting, even with technology on our side, there are many animals who are still better. As far as "It's natural to destroy the environments of other species." No, it's natural for animals, like humans, to use other species for their survival needs, kills for no reason is just the opposite of natural, it's human.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Evolution doesn't care for arrogance or self-righteousness.No animals hunt better than humans because we have much more developed brains with sophisticated thought processes . We're capable of hunting ALL animals no matter how elusive. We have traps. We're the only species that keep pets, I believe, others only care about their survival, we on the other hand waste our time with beauty and cuteness and animal rights, etc... It only slows down the natural process of Evolution.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I didn't say evolution cared for arrogance or self-righteousness, simply commenting on human being's seem to often suffer delusions of grandeur.From an evolutionary stand point, killing more then you can eat (thus wasting food) is hardly good for the species. Depends on what you define as a pet. Many animals have mutual relationships with other animals. I believe you are confusing the evolutionary process with taking responsibility with one's actions. You seem to have a false idea of what evolution is, evolution isn't throwing a baby in the Ocean and saying "either learn to swim and avoid the sharks or die" but rather a process which helps species become better suited for their surroundings.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Friend, evolution is a natural process, it happens/occurs on its own, without anyone throwing any baby in any ocean! What do you think Evolution is? Go look it up on Wiki or something. It has nothing to do with delusions of grandeur and nothing to do with wasting food.If species become better suited for their surroundings, great! But evolution doesn't "help" them. We should stop wasting our time trying to save the species that are basically not meant to survive.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Evolution does not occur on its own, it occurs as a reactions to a change in the animals surroundings. Evolution does help a species survive, in fact that's the entire point of it.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Evolution does not occur on its own, it occurs as a reactions to a change in the animals surroundings.Inaccurate. Gene frequencies change regardless of environmental influences.Evolution does help a species survive, in fact that's the entire point of it.It's not the entire point at all. It's merely a process of change. Whether survivability increases depends on a number of pressures, and isn't an inevitable end.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I would usually agree with you, but we are talking about since endangered species are failing to adapt to their environment, from an evolutionary stand point we should stop protecting them."Inaccurate. Gene frequencies change regardless of environmental influences."Those changes are usually mutations, and did not occur in order to increase the chances of survival of the endangered species we are talking about"It's not the entire point at all. It's merely a process of change. Whether survivability increases depends on a number of pressures, and isn't an inevitable end."Organism, such as virus, evolve in order to increase the chances of survival. Which is why there are now viruses that are immune to medicine that previously worked.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Look, we're still stuck on should we or shouldn't we save them. And why?Some species evolve to survive like your virus example, those are obviously good at the game. Some aren't so good at it, so they become endangered. Why should we help them?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Those changes are usually mutations, and did not occur in order to increase the chances of survival of the endangered species we are talking aboutThe point is, there's no such thing as evolutionary change that occurs in order to increase fitness. Mutations simply occur at varying rates and are pit against selective pressures that result in neutrality, selection for or selection out. It is natural selection that occurs in the environmental loop as dual-occurring feedback, not evolution.Organism, such as virus, evolve in order to increase the chances of survivalStop with the teleological language. Virii (which aren't alive) and bacteria in general have high mutation rates. That's all. Evolution does not occur so that some subsequent result will happen. It just happens. Leave it at that.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I agree that evolution does help species survive, in a way, species evolve to become better adapted to their environment, etc... but that's all. What happens when something changes the natural habitat of a species and because it cannot adapt to it, it becomes extinct. That habitat is then available for another species. New species are created and species become extinct all the time throughout history. The question remains, "should we save them, or leave them?"