azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Methane released from farm animals is 21 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.That's a laugh.Prolonging the misery.Precisely.And then rise again as they fight over dwindling food supplies.Doubtful.As would our ability to cure them.Cure? Ha!And we revert to a completely male-dominated society.*What is so bad about that?Children who have no future anyway.Of course not - with nuclear holocaust behind every corner.Until the next major mutation of flu, which would kill millions.It could just as easily happen today - of course, the government would not then be responsible.Smaller wars for smaller populations, effects exactly the same.The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

That's a laugh.I know.Precisely.I find myself in agreement.Cure? Ha!You consider medicine to be ineffective?What is so bad about that?I would argue that it would have a worse effect on society than high divorce rates.Of course not - with nuclear holocaust behind every corner.That world view is fifty years outdated.It could just as easily happen today - of course, the government would not then be responsible.As with Bird and Swine flu? "World in panic, two dead!".The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.That was because of the number of nations involved. In a reverted society with lower populations, wars using more primitive weapons but the same nations would be proportionately just as devastating, if not more so, without machines to rebuild infrastructure. Millions would die from famine, as they did in Russia during WWII, but without machines with which to harvest crops, there would be no hope of meeting demand. Reverting to pre-industrial society would end our society.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

You consider medicine to be ineffective?Effective? Yes - but effective at what? What do medicines do, besides masking symptoms?That world view is fifty years outdated.Then whatever is out nowadays must be fifty times worse!As with Bird and Swine flu? "World in panic, two dead!"Shows us just how stupid this world has become.Reverting to pre-industrial society would end our society.Precisely! It would end our society and at the same time give us a far more utopic society in its place. If you believe that it would end humanity - as one may construe from your last sentence - than perhaps one ought to ponder just how we survived the last millions of years.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Effective? Yes - but effective at what? What do medicines do, besides masking symptoms?Well, they can cure and prevent disease, for example.Then whatever is out nowadays must be fifty times worse!The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons has decreased since the cold war. Shows us just how stupid this world has become.I agree. But how would a stupid world survive without technology?Precisely! It would end our society and at the same time give us a far more utopic society in its place.Feudalism is far from utopic.If you believe that it would end humanity - as one may construe from your last sentence - than perhaps one ought to ponder just how we survived the last millions of years.Back then we didn't have a population that can only be fed by utilising technology. Feeding 7 billion people without machinery is impossible. Everybody would either starve or be killed in the conflicts that would inevitably occur. If not everybody then at least 90% of the world would die. In all probability, most of the survivors would have little or no knowledge of pre-industrial farming, leading to more deaths Even if the worst case scenario were not to occur, humanity inexorably moves towards industrialisation. An endless cycle of advancement and reversion would be inevitable.If you consider either of the above to be acceptable, then I must ask for what reason you consider reversion to be necessary? It clearly isn't through concern for people.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Well, they can cure and prevent disease, for example.And people get addicted to them, which may further a government plot to control it's citizens.The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons has decreased since the cold war.Yet, they are still extraordinarily powerful.I agree. But how would a stupid world survive without technology?How did they survive before technology?Feudalism is far from utopic.Utopia is in the eye of the Beholder.If you consider either of the above to be acceptable, then I must ask for what reason you consider reversion to be necessary? It clearly isn't through concern for people.In the last two hundred years, the world had declined drastically. More and more technology only goes on to destroy the environment - animals and humans alike - through population, deforestation, etc.If, say, the population were to decrease to about 750,000,000 and all forms of industrialization were to disappear (say, through an extremely devastating war), then the survivors would have many, many years to replenish and refresh the earth - those hundreds of years would prolong Earth's existence by centuries.(P.S. AndSoccer16 says I should be a science fiction writer.)
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

People are not addicted to medicines as you claim.Nuclear weapons are no longer being used as a deterrent factor and most countries have agreed to not use them in war so the point of how powerful they are is not an issue if they are never usedMan has always made his livelihood of technology a horse and plow are a type of technological tool as is a hoe, sickle, and any other farm instrument you can possibly devise. As long as there are people there will always be technological advancement.Feudalism was an extremely oppressive and violent form of government with wars constantly being fought with neighboring lords over land and resources. Poverty ran rampant and the overall standard of living was low unless you were a lord. Your last reply shows how easily misguided and ignorant many people can be today. You assume that humanity is not part of nature but separated from it; on the contrary we are an integral part of the workings of the world. Your statement that the world has declined drastically, I believe that it is an insult to the world as a whole the world is getting along fine, and is constantly changing. You cannot stop change as change is the only constant in this world. You also make a statement in replenish and refreshing the earth. What, may i ask, is depleted in the world or unrefreshed? If you are talking about the environment, then I take it you must live under a rock and have never been outside. On the deforestation of the rain forest for instance, while i agree it is a travesty and could be handled with more care, we are along way off from completely destroying it and continue to make great strides in the conservation and preservation of the areas in question. Lastly on you statement of prolonging the earths existence, how would limiting humanity prolong the existence of the earth? The earth is a massive ball of rock and at the current time, we do not have the capability or the resources to destroy such a thing. If you know of a way of completing this monumental task please enlighten the rest of us.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

And people get addicted to them, which may further a government plot to control it's citizens.Baseless paranoia. Governments plot to control us using law.Yet, they are still extraordinarily powerful.But less powerful than they were.Utopia is in the eye of the Beholder.And is therefore impossible.In the last two hundred years, the world had declined drastically. More and more technology only goes on to destroy the environment - animals and humans alike - through population, deforestation, etc.So why do you wish to save us at all, if you consider the environment to be more important that humanity?If, say, the population were to decrease to about 750,000,000 and all forms of industrialization were to disappear (say, through an extremely devastating war), then the survivors would have many, many years to replenish and refresh the earth - those hundreds of years would prolong Earth's existence by centuries.Such a war would have to be nuclear, which would render the previously habitable areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. We would be unable to grow food and die. The Earth would be left in a worse state than if industrial society continues.P.S. AndSoccer16 says I should be a science fiction writer.What a coincidence, I have such an aspiration. Did he mean that in a negative or positive way (Reply via message)? Have you read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Baseless paranoia. Governments plot to control us using law.Who is to say that they can't control us even more by issuing laws related to medicine. For instance, ritalin, the drug used for children with ADHD (many dispute ADHD's existence) has extraordinarily serious side effects - much worse than ADHD itself. Children are forced by law to take ritalin. If they don't they are expelled from school.Also, ADHD could be a purely natural phenomena - children spend all day sitting around watching TV and using the computer/video games; if a child becomes hyper after all that laziness - all that 'pent up' energy, then who is to say that that is unnatural?And is therefore impossible.Impossible for society, not for the individual.So why do you wish to save us at all, if you consider the environment to be more important that humanity?I don't; I want humanity to 'end' - or rather, decrease drastically - so that Earth's environment can survive. (I hate environmentalists - I'm playing 'devil's advocate' on that regard)Such a war would have to be nuclear, which would render the previously habitable areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. We would be unable to grow food and die. The Earth would be left in a worse state than if industrial society continues.Precisely; humans are helpless.Another possibility: a disease kills most people, the survivors cannot survive (for some reason) in the previously industrious regions.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Who is to say that they can't control us even more by issuing laws related to medicine.That is probable.Impossible for society, not for the individual.Then it is impossible under the conditions that you laid out, unless we all became hermits, which would result in the extinction of the Human race.I don't; I want humanity to 'end' - or rather, decrease drastically - so that Earth's environment can survive. (I hate environmentalists - I'm playing 'devil's advocate' on that regard)I consider such a desire to be very strange. Why do you wish the Earth to be habitable if you also want to remove all intelligent inhabitants?Precisely; humans are helpless.A man with a stick is the most dangerous beast on Earth.Another possibility: a disease kills most people, the survivors cannot survive (for some reason) in the previously industrious regions.Ever read "The stand", by Stephen King?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

I consider such a desire to be very strange. Why do you wish the Earth to be habitable if you also want to remove all intelligent inhabitants?Because the so-called 'intelligent inhabitants' are idiots with total disregard for life - both human and animal - unless it results in their own profit. Greed is everything to most humans.Ever read "The stand", by Stephen King?No, I have not; though, DaWolfman told me that a plot of a story I attempted to write was almost identical to The Stand.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

total disregard for lifeThese being the people you want to die.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

These being the people you want to die.Of course; they are selfish bastards and don't deserve to live - especially when they put personal profit above the lives of millions of animals and people.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Of course; they are selfish bastards and don't deserve to liveYou condemn people to death because they do not value life? Hypocrisy.especially when they put personal profit above the lives of millions of animals and people.I don't think many people feel that way. There are certainly more compassionate people than greedy ones. It is easy to talk about reversion now, but in the event I think you would find pre-industrial life to be quite miserable.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

You condemn people to death because they do not value life? Hypocrisy.The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If one billion people will be responsible for many billions of deaths, than they need to be 'done away' with.I don't think many people feel that way. There are certainly more compassionate people than greedy ones.Are there, now? I quite find that difficult to imagine; why, think you, do few charities actually give a large portion of their money to the people they claim to be helping, rather than pocketing it for themselves?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If one billion people will be responsible for many billions of deaths, than they need to be 'done away' with.Some of the worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated in the name of the greater good.Are there, now? I quite find that difficult to imagine; why, think you, do few charities actually give a large portion of their money to the people they claim to be helping, rather than pocketing it for themselves?It is more important to think of the millions of people who give to charity, not the thousands who misuse it.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

It is more important to think of the millions of people who give to charity, not the thousands who misuse it.How much do they give? 2%, maybe 3%?Some of the worst atrocities in history have been perpetrated in the name of the greater good.And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

How much do they give? 2%, maybe 3%?They have families to feed as well. What are you a communist? I thought you had more sense than that.And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.You achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

How much do they give? 2%, maybe 3%?They have families to feed as well. What are you a communist? I thought you had more sense than that.And we have no plausible way of knowing whether it turned out to be for the greater good or not. We assume, because of all the so-called 'atrocities', that those events were pure evil; they may have been some sort of 'blessing'.You cannot achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

What are you a communist? No, leaning more towards either anarchism or libertarianism.I thought you had more sense than that.Somebody has different political beliefs than you, and thus they must have no sense?You cannot achieve your aims if you perpetrate their antithesis to do so. Killing 6 billion people to save 1 billion people cannot be defined as "the greater good of humanity".What about killing 6 billion people to save Earth and all of it's inhabitants - both "animal, vegetable, and mineral"?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

No, leaning more towards either anarchism or libertarianism.Well, you understand the importance of money, I take it?Somebody has different political beliefs than you, and thus they must have no sense?All the evidence points to communism being a bad concept, as well as being (ironically) totally unfair. Besides, what are your opinions on liberals? Do they have much sense?What about killing 6 billion people to save Earth and all of it's inhabitants - both "animal, vegetable, and mineral"?"Both" of three options? Regardless of grammar, killing six billion people is not the way to save life. I think extinguishing that many sentient creatures negates the salvation of any number of animals and plants (Unless it is a such a number of animals and plants as would remove our food-source, though I trust I do not need to explain that). You seem very comfortable proposing this option, but in the event I doubt you could bring yourself to kill anybody, let alone six billion (mostly) innocent people.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

All the evidence points to communism being a bad concept, as well as being (ironically) totally unfair.Precisely, which is why I have, in past, argued that socialism is the best choice in theory, but that in practice it most likely would fail miserably.Besides, what are your opinions on liberals? Do they have much sense?There are, actually, a few areas with which I can agree with those radicals."Both" of three options?I wasn't thinking clearly. The reference 'animal, vegetable, and mineral' comes from Gilbert & Sullivan's The Major General's Son.I think extinguishing that many sentient creatures negates the salvation of any number of animals and plants Why? How is it that sentience can be so important? Animals seem to get along just fine - many would say better than us humans - without that concept to which we refer as 'sentience'.You seem very comfortable proposing this option,I am the Devil's Advocate, remember.but in the event I doubt you could bring yourself to kill anybody, let alone six billion (mostly) innocent people.Yeah, I know... Unfortunately, I probably couldn't make the call. Though I'm sure that our politicians are heartless enough to do so...
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Precisely, which is why I have, in past, argued that socialism is the best choice in theory, but that in practice it most likely would fail miserably.Then here we stand in agreement.There are, actually, a few areas with which I can agree with those radicals.Such as?Why?People are unique in personality, animals are not. destroying a human is like destroying an painting of which no copies have been or can be made. You may not like the painting, but it is irreplaceable. How is it that sentience can be so important? Animals seem to get along just fine - many would say better than us humans - without that concept to which we refer as 'sentience'.Social animals rarely willingly sacrifice their own kind, which is one of their more admirable traits. I am the Devil's Advocate, remember.Satan only ever killed one man.Yeah, I know... Unfortunately, I probably couldn't make the call. Though I'm sure that our politicians are heartless enough to do so...No doubt.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Such as?Decriminalization of drugs, for one thing (though it is still an 'iffy' topic for me)People are unique in personality, animals are not. destroying a human is like destroying an painting of which no copies have been or can be made. You may not like the painting, but it is irreplaceable.But most people are like abstract art or cubism - it's just better not to have them. They ruin it for everybody else.Social animals rarely willingly sacrifice their own kind, which is one of their more admirable traits. Altruism is a rather famous traits amongst ants; perhaps we could learn from them?Satan only ever killed one man.He did?No doubt.I do so hope that you are not being facetious.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Decriminalization of drugs, for one thing (though it is still an 'iffy' topic for me)Any you completely agree with?But most people are like abstract art or cubism - it's just better not to have them. They ruin it for everybody else.That is a matter of perspective (pun).Altruism is a rather famous traits amongst ants; perhaps we could learn from them?Perhaps you can start by ceasing to plot the death of 85% of our population then.He did?No, seven men and three women, at the command of God. All were the children of a man called Job, from the land of Urz. God, however, regularly committed Genocide. I do so hope that you are not being facetious.Of course not, I am being blithe.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Any you completely agree with?Well, I got '20% liberal' on some online test.That is a matter of perspective (pun).My perspective is the only accurate one.No, seven men and three women, at the command of God. All were the children of a man called Job, from the land of Urz. God, however, regularly committed Genocide.You don't even believe either exists; however, if you did, you would admit that the devil has been far more destructive over the years. For instance, the Vatican's chief exorcist insists that Hitler was possessed.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Well, I got '20% liberal' on some online test.So...no.My perspective is the only accurate one.I disagree.You don't even believe either exists; however, if you did, you would admit that the devil has been far more destructive over the years.He is supposed to be. God, however, is supposed to be loving. He wiped out the world on a whim.For instance, the Vatican's chief exorcist insists that Hitler was possessed.Doubt not the word, only what man makes of it.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

And people get addicted to themHa! I've never heard of anyone being addicted to vaccinations. Have you ever seen someone sneaking to get the Polio vaccine.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Just where, might I ask, did you get the word 'vaccination' from in all this? Not once did I refer to vaccinations, but to medications.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Your argument is too full of stupid to address it all so I'm going to pick one point:The effects of all of Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not nearly as devastating as that of WWII.While the number of people killed in these wars was high, the percentage of the population killed was actually lower than many wars. For example, look at the Thirty years war which claimed the lives of up to 30% of Germany. Some individual countries lost 3/4s of their population. In addition, the main cause of death in wars back then was disease, which killed much more than any weapon. I think WWI was the first war in which more people died from battle than illness (although I could be mistaken on that point). And anyways, our ability to treat the wounded would go way down.Also one more point: food back then was ridiculously less healthy than food now. Other than the occaisional recall of tainted food we are eating the cleanest food in human history. If you went back to any time before Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle then you are likely to be eating your food with a nice helping of feces mixed right in. Lucky for us, the FDA now inspects the food (and drugs) we consume to ensure it is of good quality.