azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Value can mean importance or usefulness and this is according to the Longman Dictionary. Now, the proposition does not necessarily imply that animals should have the same rights. Just like the value of food and clothing, they are both valuable but they are not the same.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

In saying animals are people to is true. But they are worth the same. Because we need them for testing. And they need us for cures.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

I may agree with what you say but that only goes to show that both animals and humans have a value in respect to the other. It does not mean they have the same value.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Animals would have the same or more value to life. Life doesn't need cars or computers. Life also doesn't need smarts or discovers. So if anything humans are like the most pointless beings on the earth.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Then explain to me why they don't receive equal rights.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

This debate is not about rights but if you want to know then it's because humans just don't let have have more rights. Just because you have more rights doesn't mean you have a better value.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

You seriously believe that they should be granted council housing and unemployment benefits if they don't work? If you don't then you don't value them as much as humans.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I do value them more then humans. It doesn't matter if you do are don't value them more it not about that. It about life and what life values the most is living things. Life does value humans because humans are living things but life doesn't value humans anymore or any less then animals. Because even know we are smarter and are able to build computers and cars. Like I said life doesn't value that stuff it only values living things.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Saying that nature values every living thing equally is a nonsense. Do you know how many millions of microorganisms are being killed by your body every day??I don't get it. If you personally value dogs more than humans why don't you think they should be given equal rights as humans?
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I do believe they should be given more rights and I do value dogs more than humans. This is not based on how we value things it's about how life value things and what life value is living things.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Please define what this 'life' thing is that you feel attributes values to different creatures. I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you just trying to be poetic?You say dogs should have more rights but my question still remains. Why don't you believe dogs should be given EQUAL rights to humans??
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Earth it's a base of life and wants to keep living things on it's plant.I think they should be given equal rights but I am not going to make a big deal over it.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Earth it's a base of life and wants to keep living things on it's plant.The Earth doesn't want anything. It would be just as 'happy' if it were a smouldering ball of magma.I think they should be given equal rights but I am not going to make a big deal over it.I don't believe you. You believe that dogs should have a right to social housing, IVF for infertility etc?
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

OK but life wants living things so that's why it values living things.Sorry I didn't mean to say that last time. I believe that dogs shouldn't be given equal rights because they can't do everything that we can.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Earth it's a base of life and wants to keep living things on it's plant.I think they shouldn't be given equal rights but I am not going t
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

It's a lost cause arguing with this guy. I've provided links and sources to prove this guy wrong and all he can do is sit there and say, "but I'm right" basically. His last argument to me was basically waving his alleged knowledge of animals in my face.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I gave you links. But they don't compare to ones experience and studys. Your just don't want to reason with anything.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Hypothetical situation:You have to choose between saving your pet or saving a person who you hate. I choose my pet. You have to choose between saving your pet or saving a person who you love. I choose the person who I love.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Humans Are Top Of The Food Chain, Highly Intelligent, And More Important Than Animals.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Not only that but we look a lot better in their fur than they do ;)
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Sure that why people don't understand shit. And people pay lots of money on animals.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Name Something People Do Not Understand That A Dog Does.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

People don't understand that dogs are smarter then people thinks. I worked with dogs all my life. Oww here is a smart commit. Dogs understand whats it like being owned.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Slaves, You Lose.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Your just a person that thinks your worth more. I trade you for a animal in a second. Not because I think animals are worth more because your just king that thinks your better.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Knowing That Humans Are More Important Than Animals Doesn't Make Me A Bad Person. Do Something To My Dogs And I Will Have A Hard Time Holding To My Humans Are Better Concept. Animals Are Important, But Humans Are More Important.Note: I Am Not Talking About You Personally About My Dogs.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Humans Can Live Off Plants. All Predatory Animals Couldn't Live Without Animals. That Fact That You Have Made A Special Category For Humans Shows They Are More Important.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Why have you started writing all your arguments as if they were newspaper headlines?
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I Realized How Important They Are. :) Hehe. My Phone Does That, Now You Can Tell When I Post From My Phone.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Depends on the human. In your case animals are worth more.-----------------------------
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Nice avatar is that you on the bottom? LOLOLOLOL-------------------------------------
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Yes and he is my big lover. I don't feel people in this way. Dog,wolf has always been in my feelings. I am sorry if you can't understand.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Oh I understand. I understand that you are either a sick disgusting freak or a troll
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I think your just a kid. You don't understand love. It all your opinion I can say the same thing about you.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Not to me. If it was my dog or my mother, I'll have to say that I would miss the dog, but would not feel too bad after replacing it. Maybe in a perfect world I could say yes, but this isn't one.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

This is not about love ones. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

If the loved one is a human it's still the same argument, but I understand where you are coming from, I'd also save my mother before an innocent bystander.However you should have already guessed, if it was also just an innocent bystander or a dog, I'd save the innocent bystander first, and the dog second if there was time.This isn't just my thinking either. The general population tends to rate animals as second class citizens and it's true.Animals are not allowed to roam freely in the places we create to live. Animals are taken, horded, farmed and use for sustenance. Animal are kept captive and used for entertainment, not to mention disciplined in a way we'd never discipline even a murderer. No rapist has ever had his face rubbed in his victim to show him it was wrong. Nor has a rapist (in modern times) been castrated legally for his crimes, in the U.S.Worth is not even objective. You could ask if are we (you and myself) are equal in worth. I'll tell you no. If it's my life or your life, I'm choosing my life. What would you choose, honestly?
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Still this is not about choosing. This is about we are both worth the same as in saying we are both important. example If I needed you to help me over this wall and you needed me to help you in order to live.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Everything is important to some extent, even spiders. Or I should probably say especial spiders. Your debate asks are animals equal to humans, the answer is a definite no.Animals are important, humans are important, spiders are important. The worth is in what each individual puts into it, since as I stated before no worth is objective. Now to most humans the worth scale is this, highest to lowest: Human, animal, spider.You said:"Still this is not about choosing."Worth is easily discernible when a choice is needed to be made, that is why I make it about choice.You also said:" If I needed you to help me over this wall and you needed me to help you in order to live."This is not proving that we are worth the same, what it's proving to me more is that I would still value my worth over your worth. We would most likely have an argument, over who would push who over the wall first, since we both value ourself and our desire to be over this wall.Let's up the ante. Say it's an army, with guns coming after us. Say I help you onto the wall because I believe you will stay atop the wall and help me up. Knowing that once you get to the top of that wall, you will be a target for the armed soldiers with guns, will you value our lives the same and stay to help me, or will you value your own life more than mine, and get off the off the wall now that you are clear to the other side and safe from danger? I actually want an answer to this question, i feel it may clear your head on this idea you have of objective worth. I can already tell you, that if it were I on the wall, and you in need of a hand, at the risk of my life, I'd choose my life. Not for any ill thoughts of you, but for the simple fact that we are not equal in worth to me.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

The worth is in what each individual puts into it, It not about that. Still your not getting it.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

I gave you proof. I gave you examples. I gave you facts. You can't argue with facts that pessed me off that you did that.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Hm... Odd, that's exactly what I said. Whatever child.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

Yes but that is a bias, meaning a personal opinion. I think they're saying all animals vs. humans. See what I mean?
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

That's one of the points I addressed in one of my later arguments. Worth isn't even an objective thing. Worth varies with every person.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Human organs are worth more than animal organs.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

That is true. But how do you think that was possible. It was because of animal testing.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

No. It's possible because the corthaghian prolifrigum had established the equation for the cortex of your mind's cerebellum. What this means is, that your response made no sense. :(
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

No my response made sense. Yoy just don't get it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Nope, we are worth more than animals.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

So lets just kill the animals. Because there not important for us to live.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Animals still reproduce so it's not like we're going to run out of animals.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

But if there was no animals. How are we to live. If animals aren't important or at least the same. let just kill them all.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

We can all be vegetarians and eat fruits and vegetables.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: Yes

But with out animals how are plants to grow. Things die and plants use that.
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

They are tastierThey are tastierThey are tastierThey are tastierThey are tastierThey are tastier
Debate: Is a animal worth the same to life as a human
Side: no

Based on average actuarial values, a human is worth more than an animal.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Unless creating wealth and raising the standard of living is a problem, then I don't know anything.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

How does creating wealth for a few, raise the standard of living for the masses?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Henry Ford got incredibly wealthy off of his cars. Everyone is better off. Bill Gates got incredibly wealthy off his computer systems. Everyone is better off. Wealth isn't created for these few, it is created by these few. They made it, and they keep what's theirs. And everyone is still better off.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Henry Ford is credited for starting mass production, this line of thinking brought robots into the work place and outsourcing. Everyone sure is better off without job.Bill Gates created the Internet, now you have access to vast amount of mis-information and propaganda. I'd rather be uneducated, then mis-informed.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

The wheel, over time led to nukes. Damn that brilliant caveman!
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

...Bill Gates created Microsoft. Not the internet. The World Wide Web was created by Tim-Berners Lee, a CERN employee. If you search Wikipedia's history of the internet article, Bill Gates is all of nowhere to be found.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

COMPARE United States of America to any African country. This will prove that capitalism improves the standard of living for the masses.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Compare the very capitalistic economy of the USA and the more socialist economies of Europe, I think you'll find that the standard of living for the masses in Europe is better due to there being a lot less inequality.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Capitalism isn't the solution to all dilemmas in the world though. The kind of system capitalism is applied to is very important. For instance, the kind of system capitalism is applied to day is destroying the global ecosystem, destroying our resources while catastrophically heating the world up.That doesn't mean that capitalism is essentially bad though. It just means that we can't say that everything capitalism is applied will result in betterment of the world.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Capitalism provided with free markets, sound money and personal freedom is the solution to all dilemmas in the world. The kind of capitalist markets today are not free, they are controlled and interfered by government causing cronyism.Despite what kind of capitalism, resources are not destroyed, they are conserved. Capitalism only looks to use resources in the most efficient matter, so any destroying of resources is the result of government interference.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

How do we prevent organizations exploiting things like planned obsolescence? As far as I can tell the only thing the market is capable of is optimizing time efficiency, i.e. production gets faster and faster all the time. There's almost no consideration for 'extranalities' like whether one's bread is based on GMOs, whether monoculture destroys soil or whether 'modern' meat production requires intensive use of antibacterials which eventually will result in multi resistant super bacteria. If we want to be truly effective we should have disassembly lines, and we shouldn't mix biological resources with technical resources. But most importantly, we should strive for local solutions, which will take local circumstances into consideration. We should use soaps of varying chemical constitutions depending on the environment they are supposed to be used in. This seems to go against the "one size fits all" aspect of realized capitalism, so regardless of whether that aspect is a necesary or merely contingent consequence of capitalism, the difference needs to be reconciled.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

I'm afraid you might have it the other way around. I do not deny that "cronyism" is a serious problem in the U.S. but it is the members of our governing bodies that are the crony's. we've seen evidence of our government being manipulated at every level by the leaders of our economic society for their own benefit, and to the detriment of all others.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Nothing is wrong that isn't wrong with every economic system created by humans ever. It's not a utopian thing, but honestly we could have far worse.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

There is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism. But capitalism requires a sort of referee in order for it to work well for everyone, work efficiently, and keep abuses to a minimum. A well regulated capitalism is a great thing. I don't mean to say that capitalism should be over-regulated (there should be some freedom), but there should be a balance to the system.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Nothing, it's only selfish little turds you have to worry about. Every System has it's faults, but Capitalism in my opinion is the best.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Extreme capitalism can be called heartless. ( if the people are really greedy) Extreme socialism = brainless.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Capitalism is essentially economic freedom. There is no need for it to be heartless. Is forced charity (with skimming) less heartless?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Without capitalism, I wouldn't be able to kick starving hobos without getting a ticket. Capitalism RULES,!
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

The problem is it allows people to be greedy, in fact every economic system has some problem, if any didn't we'd be using it.I can't think of a solution to greed, because if someone as meager as myself could come up with a solution that would actually make an effect it surely would have been thought of before I was born, for as old as Capitalism is.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

How can greedy even be defined? There is no quantifiable method to determine greed. If so, politicians are then just as greedy as businessmen. They want to steal to redistribute based on what they think is moral, yet they can't even see redistributing as immoral.Correct, every economic system has problems, and all are rooted by government intervention whether it is autistic, binary or triangular.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

How can greedy even be defined?Well it's not an official definition, but it could be defined as taking more than you need, while others lack what they need. The others lacking is important, because without the other's lacking you just have ambition. Correct, every economic system has problems, and all are rooted by government intervention whether it is autistic, binary or triangular.This is the main reason I'm on this side. To say nothing is wrong with capitalism is just biased.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

How is taking more than you need defined? Who determines what is need? Everyone has different value scales thus different needs.How it is biased?
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

How is taking more than you need defined?I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.Who determines what is need?Individuals.Everyone has different value scales thus different needs.Very true, but if someone needs two bottles of water a day, and they know that's all they need, but they take three, while somebody that needs only one goes without that extra one, then that is greed.How it is biased?When you only look at the positive aspects and completely neglect the flaws.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Who determined that one bottle of water is needed opposed to two being too much. If individuals determine need, then why did you just suggest that all individuals need one bottle of water rather than two?It is impossible to acknowledge that value scales determine need, yet you quantify need based on bottles of water per day. Suggesting that one or two is required is defining need objectivity rather than subjectivity. Drinkingtwo bottles of drinking water to three isn't greed, it is changing their value scale of needs. Their marginal utility of water increased.There are no flaws in capitalism.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: This is the problem/solution

Who determined that one bottle of water is needed opposed to two being too much.Your body.If individuals determine need, then why did you just suggest that all individuals need one bottle of water rather than two?When did I?It is impossible to acknowledge that value scales determine need, yet you quantify need based on bottles of water per day.That was just a rough example, that's not me quantifying needs.There are no flaws in capitalism.Capitalism doesn't address the issues of those who are not on top.
Debate: What is wrong with Capitalism?
Side: Nothing

Right, yet my body is different than yours. Bodies do determine what is needed, but everyone is different, so suggesting that one bottle is suffice for all is wrong.THIS STATEMENT: "I can't even think of how to make it any simpler. You only need one bottle of water to survive a day, but you take two. That's more than you need.is taking more than you need defined?"Not an rough example, it was you quantifying needs because you used if this, then that, but if that, not this.Actually, it does address issues of those who are not on top.