azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Clearly I'm talking about humans and nature, not fucking asteroids and Dinos.Are asteroids and Dinos not natural?This 'human' cause destruction is completely different. Human destruction will potentially destroy all life (except maybe a few bacterium).Natural causes will inevitably wipe out all life on earth with or without humans.Because as soon as the plants die out, so does the oxygen levelFor most of the earth's history the oxygen level was well below what it is today.Humans are destroying ALL life not SOME life as the post-human NATURAL destruction caused.Certain species would live and others would die - the only difference would be which species and in what timeframe.I'm sure I clarified the point I was getting acrossActually no. You have repeatedly avoided the issue I raised with my initial post - how do you objectively define "better".PS - Just to save you from looking silly elsewhere - that is the second time you have used "asses" (the plural of ass) when you likely meant "assess".
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Well, I tried. Some people catch on, unfortunately, some do not. You won't understand this but...I am addressing human causes of unnatural and unnecessary destruction to life on earth. I never said humans not being here will cause Zero destruction. Right NOW, humans not being here would have a significant difference on ecosystems, wildlife, etc. Animals would not be confined to prisons that restrict there instinctual urges. Animals would have 80%+ more forestry to live in. So on an so forth. Nature destroys itself then replenishes, it's a cycle of nature. Humans impose on this cycle thus resulting in something unnatural. Unnatural, harmful, and torturous to wildlife. Humans do this for irrational reasons (poaching tigers just for a floor mat?). 'Humans' cause 300+ animal extinctions. 1,000+ plant extinctions, and are the cause of rising plant/animal endangerment. A species. Natural events, sure, but a species causing all of this? Basically, if this species were not here, 300+ animals would still thrive, 80%+ forestry would still be, earth would be a degree cooler, water levels would be lower, water would be cleaner-- as would the air, and more. So yes, earth would be a better place (for all life in it) if there were no humans, which is an irrefutable fact.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Some people catch on, unfortunately, some do not.You are correct - some people know what objective means, and some do not; some can learn it, for others it seems unachievable...I am addressing human causes of unnatural and unnecessary destruction to life on earth.Compared to what? Doesn't "better" require a comparator? If the comparison is to nature without humans, then natural destruction that occurs without humans is a relevant and sound disputation that has so far gone unaddressed (if not flatly conceded).Animals would not be confined to prisons that restrict there instinctual urges. Animals would have 80%+ more forestry to live in. So on an so forth.You keep making a subjective argument about preserving certain conditions/animals, but calling it objectively better.Nature destroys itself then replenishes, it's a cycle of nature.This is not inherently the case - as you acknowledge in your other post, nature will surely destroy the earth and all life on it.This also ignores the idea that human behavior may be cyclical as well - maybe future humans will be a (subjectively) better preserver for animals than current humans - even bringing back animals that have become extinct - refIn order to deal with our impact on the atmosphere, we may learn techniques (cloud-seeding for rain, adding aerosols to reduce temperature, etc.) to help us manipulate it in the future in response to natural shifts. If keeping conditions the same is "better", humans may be the best chance of maximally preserving those conditions.300+ animals would still thrive, 80%+ forestry would still be, earth would be a degree cooler, water levels would be lower, water would be cleaner-- as would the airIn every case, nature has done even worse without our contribution. The earth has been much hotter and much colder, sea levels have been far higher and lower, oxygen has been at much higher and lower concentration, etc. before humans ever existed. At which point was earth objectively "best"?So yes, earth would be a better place (for all life in it) if there were no humans, which is an irrefutable fact.Not just refutable, but refuted. You can argue that certain conditions would be subjectively preferable to achieve specific goals - keeping oxygen concentration or sea levels static, preserving the polar bear, etc., but not how any of those goals are objectively good, or even that they would be better preserved by nature over time.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

1) If you were to have taken human intelligence out of the equation, all of the 'objective' destructive results that derived from said intelligence would not have existed. 2) As a result of humans destructive tendency, they are causing an unnatural economic imbalance--amongst other things; 3) These economic imbalances are objectively bad for the earth (humans, animals, plant life, etc.); 4) These economic imbalances are caused by air pollution, water pollution, animal depletion/extinction, deforestation; 5) These destructive contributors are essentially caused by humans; 6) Therefore, given that premise "3)" is fact, humans are objectively worse for the planet now and if they had never existed, then this unnatural/unnecessary cumbersome destruction of the planet would not be persistent today. (Note: I said 'unnatural/unnecessary'.)(SN: all animals play a vital role in ecosystems/food-chains-/etc.; humans are the only species that serves no purpose and in fact makes matters worse for the ecosystems.)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

There is a reason you can't define objective good, and have avoided answering all of the related questions (what is the ideal oxygen concentration, etc.) - there is no such thing, different is just different.You can try to make the argument that humans have enough cognitive capacity to make certain actions (subjectively) immoral - but you erroneously exceed that when you claim it to be objectively better.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

I've give examples of objective 'betters'. You having two kidneys is 'better' than one.I've addressed everything else in my last post. And clearly you did not read further before refuting the 'Dino asteroid' point. I said 'HUMANS' and nature. The asteroid/Dino era had no humans in it. It's quite amusing how much one needs to simplify. Jeez, this is not even a philosophically based debate. It's simple, no humans=better life on earth. Eventually the sun will implode but there's no need for the torture of wildlife in the meantime.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

I've give examples of objective 'betters'. You having two kidneys is 'better' than one.Your example illustrates my point perfectly. Can something that improves the survivability of humans be objectively better when you also say it would be better if humans did not exist?I said 'HUMANS' and nature. The asteroid/Dino era had no humans in it.Doesn't "'HUMANS' and nature" also include nature?? In order to compare human destruction to 'natural' destruction don't you need to look at the other side of the equation? There were several mass extinction events without humans and yet somehow you (still) avoid evaluating that fact on your scale of "better".Eventually the sun will implode but there's no need for the torture of wildlife in the meantime.So, when your assertion is that humans will destroy all life - that is bad, but you acknowledge that nature itself will destroy all life and somehow that is less bad?Is predation, starvation, extinction - all things that occur without humans - not torture?In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?Isn't the possibility that humans will take them to other planets the only chance that any of these animals have of escaping the "natural" destruction you mention?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

1st part; I used kidneys to exemplify an objective better.2nd part; I've stated several times that natural extinctions happened, okay, it was natural. Humans caused- and are causing- extinctions unecessarily and they do this knowingly- which is even more reason that an eradication would be best. Humans are also causing their own destruction. Asteroids, Ice ages, etc., are unknowingly caused natural events. They were just going to happen. But humans differ because it does not need to be this way (destroying the earth). Animal harmful acts such as torture; destruction of habitat; unnecessary killing; etc.; is unnecessarily done by humans.3rd part; The sun natural event is billions of years away. As for right now, killing off and torturing privileged nature is unnecessary. A lion brutally killing an elephant calf--which is almost always torturous seeing as how a male lions bite cannot peirce it's neck to suffocate it--results in a meal for the pride so the lionesses can produce milf for their cubs. Even a male lion taking over a pride killing off all of the former male's cubs is reasonable and--for the male--necessary. A human shooting a male lion just to nail it's body to the wall in no way is necessary. Even in his subjective view it still wouldn't be necessary- Aesthetic satisfaction is not necessary. Indigenous human tribes hunting would a necessity. But a hunter sniping game and shooting duck is not necessary, and most often times is only for pure sport.Scientist are trying to relocate asiatic lions across India, but the area that has the last of these rare lions refuse to let them do so simply because they want to be known as the area with the last of the asiatic lions.... Wow. This type of behavior is typical amongst humans.You've also mentioned cows/dogs/cats, if humans never domesticated these animals--like all other wildlife--they would have thrived naturally- this case cannot call for terms such as 'better' because the domestication of these animals was not some sort of 'rescue'. I actually don't know why you use this example. A tiger lives about 12-16 years in the wild; in captivity they live up to 25 years. While in this captivity they suffer from extreme depression; mental disabilities due to inbreeding (esp. when it comes to white tigers); confusion as a result of instinctual urges that cannot be acted upon; and more. Sure the conditions (protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild) are better but their life is not. Most cows do not graze naturally and freely, esp. in America, because of the rapid meat productivity (the 'non-most' being in the small expensive organic section in food markets). Your idea of taking animals to another planet presupposes a lot of fantastical thinking. (P.S. there may be a numerous spelling errors due to me not being on the computer [phone and auto correct].)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

1st part; I used kidneys to exemplify an objective better.Right - you used a logical contradiction. You said that it is both objectively better that humans have a better chance of survival and that the same survival is worse. Starting to run out of ways to explain this to you...2nd part; I've stated several times that natural extinctions happened, okay, it was natural.You continue to support my argument. Whatever nature does is ok with you - therefore there is no better or worse condition. Without humans, whatever happens just happens, which was the point I raised in my initial post.3rd part; The sun natural event is billions of years away.There are several other natural endangerments to most or all life on earth: asteroids, calderas, solar flares, gamma rays, etc. which could happen any time; more importantly, if all life is wiped out, does it objectively matter when?But a hunter sniping game and shooting duck is not necessary, and most often times is only for pure sport.I'm going to go on a limb and say you don't know very many hunters. Most hunters either eat their kill or donate the meat. Regardless, the animal would still be used by nature - either other animals would use or it would provide soil nutrients. How is this objectively better or worse than when nature drops a tree on an animal? Hunters also try for a clean/quick kill where the animal suffers minimally (also in the hunters interest), nature has no such goal. Sufficiently enlightened hunters even take measures to conserve animal populations for the future - measuring animal populations, using tags/lottery, etc. Moreover, this is still irrelevant to what is objectively better since the necessity of humans or any other animal is a subjective opinion.protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wildI would add that they have a way better chance of not starving to death, but, more importantly, why keep debating me if you insist on supporting everything I've said...?Your idea of taking animals to another planet presupposes a lot of fantastical thinking.The opposite is certain - nature will kill all life on earth. To say that humans helping animals survive that fate is improbable rather than impossible is conceding the point that the chance exists.PS - your grammar is usually the problem, not spelling (though "lionesses can produce milf" was pretty entertaining - I always thought that was cougars...)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Funny you avoid my premises dispute.Right - you used a logical contradiction. You said that it is both objectively better that humans have a better chance of survival and that the same survival is worse. Starting to run out of ways to explain this to you...You just don't get it do you? How about this, a tiger having two kidneys is better than one... Haha you really try and argue the most irrelevant points... Argue my premises then we may continue with a more 'structured' debate. -----Also, I'm not supporting your side. You have this illusory belief that nature would be the same without humans KNOWING the destruction that humans cause; knowing that humans are making the earth more uninhabitable- even for themselves!?!?; knowing that they're doing it unnecessarily; all the while, still not substantiating the claim about how they are beneficial to earths ecosystem. But again, lets continue off the premises I presented- I believe it was my last disputation.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

a tiger having two kidneys is better than oneOnly if it is objectively good that tigers live. If natural causes eventually forced tigers to become extinct, would that be objectively bad?Also, I'm not supporting your side.I asked, "In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?"You offerred "protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild" which enure to the affirmative.You have this illusory belief that nature would be the same without humansNot "the same", just different - not objectively better.more uninhabitableNature made the earth the most uninhabitable it ever was and will inevitably make it the most unihabitable possible.But again, lets continue off the premises I presented- I believe it was my last disputation.My argument was, and is, the same as my first post - '"Better" is a human judgment', and until you can objectively define the ideal condition for the earth, you cannot say what would be better or worse at achieving that condition.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Only if it is objectively good that tigers live. Tigers cause a healthy balance in the ecosystem that is necessitated for 'human' survival (since that seems to you the only way something can be objectively better).I asked, "In at least some instances, don't humans improve conditions for some animals (cats, dogs, cows, etc.)?"Humans make these conditions worse; I also stated that these animals were fine before being domesticated- actually, seeing all the torturous conditions that only humans put them in, it's actually worse for them.Not "the same", just different - not objectively better.Right, less torture; more habitat for the animals; a very long period of naturally good occurrences- I'm speaking of the homo-sapient era so don't respond with 'asteroids' and 'sun implosions'.But since you choose not to refute my premises, then I guess there's no point in advancing further.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Tigers cause a healthy balance in the ecosystem that is necessitated for 'human' survival (since that seems to you the only way something can be objectively better).Perfect. Here is exaclty why your argument is cretenous. You are saying that the environment best suited to human survival is objectively better and that it would be objectively better for humans not to exist.that seems to you the only way something can be objectively betterJust the opposite, objective means regardless perspective - human survival is only subjectivly good or bad (as evinced by your own posts).less torture; more habitat for the animalsAgain, those are subjective to the affected animals. Are more cheetahs objectively good for gazelles?since you choose not to refute my premisesI have repeatedly refuted your premises, yet you still use them."3) These economic imbalances are objectively bad for the earth "Define the ideal condition for the earth...
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You are saying that the environment best suited to human survival is objectively better and that it would be objectively better for humans not to exist.Can you read? I said you are saying that. You are also saying that humans living and destroying themselves is objectively better for themselves. Are more cheetahs objectively good for gazelles?Exclude more; cheetahs are objectively good for gazelles because it cause a balance in their ecosystem (I.e. less cheetahs=more gazelle; more gazelle=less plantation; less plantation=less gazelle). Define the ideal condition for the earth...By earth I include all life on it; so one ideal condition would be oxygen. I am addressing present and future tense (within a proximity).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You are also saying that humans living and destroying themselves is objectively better for themselves.After all the back and forth you still have no clue that my argument is that there is no such thing as objectively better?This ring a bell?Me: There is a reason you can't define objective good, and have avoided answering all of the related questions (what is the ideal oxygen concentration, etc.) - there is no such thing, different is just different.Sorry, but you trying to claim others have a reading comprehension problem is just not going to carry much weight.cheetahs are objectively good for gazellesThis still depends on preserving cheetahs/gazelles being objectively better than letting them go extinct. If there are no humans, who would care if there were no cheetahs or gazelles? Maybe you should take a while to learn what objectively better means and then come back...so one ideal condition would be oxygenWhat concentration of oxygen is ideal? (Notice how I still have to repeat questions asked several times without answer.....)The concentration of today, the concentration before the industrial age, the concentration before the emergence of homo-sapiens, the concentration at the end of the Jurassic? Why is the life that exists on the earth at that oxygen concentration objectively better than the life that existed when oxygen levels were much higher or much lower in earth's history?within a proximityRight - more subjective cherry-picking.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

So having two lungs isn't objectively better than having one? Anatomical evidence suggests otherwise.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

So having two lungs isn't objectively better than having one?Right - it is not. It would only be objectively better if the survival of that animal is also objectively better.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

I'm talking about within a human/animal itself. Prevaricate if you must but you having one lung is objectively worse for your survival (assume normal health); you smoking is objectively worse for your lungs; you not having cuts is objectively better for infection prevention; etc. (Note: I'm just speaking of a person itself, not the 'human-earth' subject. Merely I'm just exemplifying an objective better.)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

I'm talking about within a human/animal itself.Right, basically the definition of subjective. Not only are you demonstrating that you did not know what objective means, but you are showing that you are incapable of learning it over time.having one lung is objectively worse for your survivalWould it be objectively better or worse for Hitler to have one lung?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Would it be objectively better or worse for Hitler to have one lung?Yes. You are implementing your person feelings making it subjective. You don't know what objective means- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Fact(1)Hitler was a human; humans have an anatomy; it is a fact that if a human loses a lung, its chances of survival become slim; therefore hitler losing a lung is objectively worse for his survival. Thereby you saying "but he killed all those innocent people :,( ..." makes it a subjective matter.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

It is better from Hitler's (subjective) perspective and worse from society's (subjective) perspective. Is Hitler's or society's perspective the one in accord with what is objectively best for the earth?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Ah see this is where you went wrong. It's better for him (FACT) regardless of anyone's perspective. (I also said to disregard the earth, just for right now.)Think anatomy.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

disregard the earth, just for right nowThe earth is where your argument fails and is the context of the debate, so disregarding would be pretty fruitless, no?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Ha, I also see how you eluded my response. I'm saying disregard the earth "for now" so I can establish the fact of an 'objective better'. Once done, I can proceed with my arguments.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

The 'better' in question is for the earth (see debate title) - so disregarding it makes your post irrelevant. And, again, better for survival says nothing about whether that survival itself is objectively better. Survival is a subjective goal highly preferenced by natural selection.