azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

That is a great point. Every living creature has value and importance.Also, I like how you listed "invisible" in the fourth to last sentence!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Maybe, but conservationists shouldn't, because then they would be out of jobs :p
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

People who think it's "good" to let species go extinct because obviously if they do that just means evolution decided they were supposed to die off don't understand what evolution is. It's like saying we shouldn't interfere when we see someone falling off a cliff because gravity says things are "supposed" to fall. Gravity just describes how/why things DO fall. It doesn't say it's good that they fall. And evolution just describes (among other things) how/why some species DO go extinct. It doesn't say it's good that they go extinct.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Nature isn't about good or bad. Nature doesn't have moral values I'm afraid. It's simply the case of passing on genetic codes... we're currently the leader in the game. Good or bad isn't part of the plan at all.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

And evolution isn't about "should" or "shouldn't". So the answer to the debate question is rather clearly "no".
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I don't see the connection in your logic at all... Did you intend to present logic in this post?1 - Why do you say that evolution is not about "should" or "shouldn't"?2 - How does that then lead you to the clear "no"?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

You don't see the connection because you don't understand what evolutionary theory is. You think it's a prescriptive statement about how nature is supposed to work and that interfering with a species going extinct is somehow preventing thing from working the way they are supposed to. That is nonsense. As I explained in my initial post evolution no more says a species that went extinct was supposed to go extinct than gravity says that someone who fell off a building was supposed to fall off the building. It just describes the physical mechanisms by which it happens.You saying "because evolution says weak species go extinct+ we SHOULD let weak species go extinct" is exactly as valid as saying "gravity says people who fall off buildings will plummet to their deaths thefore we SHOULD let people plummet to their deaths."+(Evolution does not actually say this btw. "Weakenss" and "strength" are not the criteria for evolutionary success. Reproduction is)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, just on the point of gravity, if someone jumps off a building, gravity says they will plummet to their death. Likewise with natural selection, if a species doesn't have what it takes to compete for the Earth's resources, they won't last. I think we agree on that right? What we're debating here is "should" we interfere with that process and why. So many species have gone extinct in our lifetime? Should we save other endangered species and why? Try not to let your feelings interfere.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

And the problem is that you think it's "interfering" in a "process" that doesn't exist. But if you absolutely insist on a "why" we should "interfere"... because loss of biodiversity is a long term hazard to the entire ecosystem. And guess what we're part of?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ah HAH! Biodiversity is the best reason yet to save endangered species! But I still have something for you to think about: extinction is as much a part of existence as death is a part of life. Some 3 species of plant or animal become extinct every hour:http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Rate-of-Extinction-3-Species-per-Hour-55411.shtml The extinction of the dodos and Tasmanian tigers haven't negatively impacted our human existence at all (except we're now a bit sad that we can't see them any more). So what reasons have we got to save endangered species (other than the obvious "we want to look at them").
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Yes, extinction is as much a part of existence as life or death. To go back to the beginnning... yet again... so is people falling to their death off cliffs. You aren't actually making any arguments, you're just making random observations.And you have no idea if the extinction of the dodo or the Tasmanian tiger didn't negatively impact us because you don't have any clue what the world would be like today if they hadn't gone extinct. And you don't know what the impact of the extinction of those three plant or animal species that went extinct in the last hour is going to be in a year, or 5, or 10, or 50 because the system behaviors are too complex to fully model...What we DO know is that the less diverse the ecosystem becomes the more unstable it is prone to be and the more susceptible to catastrophic disruption it becomes. Which is a bad thing.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

What we DO know is that the less diverse the ecosystem becomes the more unstable it is prone to be and the more susceptible to catastrophic disruption it becomesWe know this for sure do we? I must have missed that memo. We don't know anything. We might have theories, but they're not at all concrete. Our best efforts may save a couple of species from extinction now, but nature can destroy them quite easily with a simple virus...
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Yes, we do know that. It's a basic property of these kinds of complex systems. The more elements you remove the larger a role the remaining elements have to play and the more pronounced the relative effects of removing them can become. And there you go AGAIN with the "things happen anyway" stuff.Yes, we might save some species and "nature" might wipe out some others anyway.We might grab that guy before he falls off the cliff but another one might fall off a different cliff tomorrow. What the hell is your point? That because of that we shouldn't save the first guy either?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Yeah, I guess that is what I'm saying. I mean I think it's a bit futile to try and control nature don't you think? It sounds rather heartless and immoral but nature is kinda cruel, don't you think?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Umm, bull? Up to this point you've been all about how "evolutionists" are supposed to be all gung ho about "survival of the fittest" and that means we should not only stop trying to prevent the extinction of other species but maybe even speed up the process. In case you missed it the reason those species are dying off at the rate they are is because we are exerting a huge degree of control over nature.Now all of a sudden you run out of reasons why we should be using that control the way we are and "poof"... we can't control nature! Oh no... futile to try really. Can't be done. I think what you meant to say was "I don't wanna, so I'll say it's too hard then we can keep doing what we were doing."
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I never said we can control nature, buddy. I don't think it's possible. So if I gave you that impression somewhere, then i apologize. We all do what makes us happy, so if that involves trying to save cute species of animals, great! But bear in mind that nature will put you in your place and she does all the time. I dunno, I mean people spend money and lotsa time trying to save a certain area of a forest, and then a naturally occuring forest fire wipes it all out in one day... nature rules!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

No, you just made arguments that entirely rested on the assumption that we can and do control nature on a daily basis.Which we do. So suddenly claiming it's impossible is a ridiculous thing to do.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

A huge part of why a lot of species are being saved is because humans have overhunted them, destroyed their habitats and homes, or polluted them to death. Evolutionists are trying to save these animals as a way to reverse the bad things we, as a species, did in the past.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The strong hunts and destroy the habitats of the weak all the times in nature. It's natural. Humans are currently the strongest, that's why we're destroying the habitats of other species... We're proliferating and we need space!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Our quest to control nature went overboard. The goal of evolution is to slowly change species and kill off a few here and there. We have killed off several species and have pushed many to the brink of extinction for nothing more than beauty. Many humans used to hunt elephants for their ivory tusks. Some still do hunt elephants for this reason alone! And as for loss of habitat, there is no need for us to cut down so much of the rainforest each year. It's just that a lot of people want cheap farmland. And what's the best way to do this? Burn down a few acres of the rainforest and, in the process, destroy the homes of thousands of different species.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Farmland is what we need, we can't live in jungles, we need roads and infrastructure, too bad for other animals cos we're just better at this survival game! Why should we care for them? Because they're beautiful? Please.... what is beauty? Humans happen to find those amongst us with the best traits that maximizes survival "beautiful", things like a strong, sturdy, symmetrical body is attractive... survival of the fittest my friend! If the animals are meant to survive, they'd be able to keep us in check...
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

They can't keep us in check. We have always had the advantage, which is why we have to keep it in check ourselves. We have opposable thumbs, logical thought, only two legs, and (most importantly) technology. Just because we are the most superior does not mean we should go out and kill animals and cut down jungles.In fact, our technology allows us to maximize farmland. We can fit thousands of livestock where only a few dozen would live in the wild. And we can manufacture vertical farming.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Sure, we have all these technologies and brains that we can use to probably slow down world wide extinction rate, but why should we? Is there a benefit to saving endangered species other than because we want to look at them?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

It's called the balance of nature. I'll give an example. In the northeast US, wolves were killed off because we were afraid of them and they ate our chickens about 100 years ago. Today, people are working to get wolves back into the northeast because the deer population skyrocketed after their disappearance. Now, people are hitting deer in their cars and there is no predator to the deer.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

There's an easy answer to that: declare deer hunting season all year-round. Invite hunting tourism. You'd kill 2 bird with 1 stone: reducing the deer population and earning tourism money at the same time! The Japanese will love that shit. Maybe then they'd leave the whales alone (just kidding all you Japanese people out there, although you should probably farm whales if you're gonna eat them ;)).
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

where i live the department of natural resources introduced wolves in efforts to bring back the deer population to a reasonable level. the wolves didnt have the desired effect, and went instead after livestock. farmers are trapping them and shooting them regardless of the regulation. the wolves are a good thing, but this planet wasnt built to last forever anyway. so i say let em die and let me kill more deer:) protecting a beautiful species such as a lion is definitely a good thing but there is too much worry about the little species. nature will create its own balance after they go extinct.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

yeah, i keep telling the people here who wanna control nature to stop playing God... Nature will always find a balance.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Perhaps you feel that an animal has no beauty, or that beauty cannot be defined. However, the majority of people here actually care about what happens to an animal, after all, why should we just let an animal die for the sake of our superiority?Suppose cows were on the verge of extinction, would you rule out their survival, not to mention the supply of dairy, just because we're superior?Don't like animals? Go hunting, don't try and support animal extinction for the sake of human superiority!FYI: God created all life (as is believed by Catholics, etc), yet you suggest moving against the continuation of this life. If God wanted an animal dead, they would all die together, or at least at very close dates (I.E. the Dinosaurs). If it is a natural cause (non-God related), then why shouldn't we help the species out. Seeing as we are superior, we should be able to do that... right?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, you're gonna need to focus a little bit...Cows are farmed by us, they are not on the endangered list. They're not particularly beautiful animals either... I mean it's subjective but I don't find them attractive animals. Pandas on the other hand don't do anything for humans, why should we save them? You look at their reproductive habits, diet and behavior, it's almost like they don't want to survive!I see you've banned me in your internet filter debate. Well done, I hope you feel better! Anyways, no matter how bad you are at debating I still won't ban you from this topic... people will see through your immaturity. I believe in freedom of speech ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I can't believe that I'm actually saying this to the creator of this topic, but you seem to have trouble staying on topic. You have a habit of getting personal with me, and that is what ticks me off. I have reported you several times and am hoping that the admins will find you suitable for a ban.Getting back on topic; you need to realize that by pulling out an example of a cow going extinct, I was not stating that cows are going extinct, it was only an example!"Pandas on the other hand don't do anything for humans, why should we save them?"So, in your point of view: if an animal has no benefit towards human life, then it should not be allowed to exist? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that that is exactly what you mean. In a previous post you stated that you believed in God. I think that you're lying, because God does not create an animal without it's purpose. Dinosaurs didn't help mankind out heaps, and look what happened to them. A meteor supposedly wiped out nearly every species of dinosaur; it was out of human hands. Now, imagine what life would be like if dinosaurs still existed today. Well, we probably could go as far as imagine, but that wouldn't help us out in the long run. Getting back to the pandas; people love pandas (or at least some do...) because we have been able to live alongside them and grow to fully understand them. That creates a particular bond between species, one that could not possibly be created with a dinosaur, after all, where are they?Just because certain animals have no human benefit, that doesn't mean that they should be deprived of life because we as a "superior race" choose to do nothing. If pandas become extinct, people will come to regret it (NOT ALL! -I cannot stress that enough-). Sure, pandas don't have human rights, but any animal has a right to live. Who are we to let them go? It seems rather heartless to me.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

My beliefs land me in the category of Theistic Evolutionists. I believe that God created the universe and evolution is one of the many processes of God's work. This topic however, is about the pure Evolutionists' belief system (they don't believe in God). According to them everything magically appeared from nothingness in the beginning. So I personally believe that animals should be saved from extinction, but I've chosen to represent the opposite side in this topic to challenge myself because it's seemingly a difficult position to be in. However, todate, noone has yet made a convincing argument to save the animals!!! I believe it's quite easy so let's see how long it'll take for someone to come along and put me in my rightful place :)Your example using "cows" is kinda useless because we're talking about animals that are endangered. You bringing cows in doesn't make any sense. You think that an emotional bond between species is a good reason save them from extinction? I think you should consider something more concrete than "emotion" as a basis for your arguments.The rest of your arguments have nothing to do with Evolution or Evolutionists at all. Do you actually know what Natural Selection is? I know it's quite a heartless concept and you hate being heartless, but it doesn't have anything to do with heart.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

If I may add one comment about yourself:You believe in freedom of speech. Fine, I am not against that. However, there are differences between raising an opinion an insulting a person. I haven't tried to insult you, as you have done multiple times to me, and therefore I find you not as a debater, but as an immature, opinionated jerk. One day that 'freedom of speech' is going to land you in trouble. I am doing this so that you can 'learn,' So feel free to take notes.Okay, now I shall keep to the topic.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

If you take everything personal, and then say that I'm insulting you that's kinda like bullying... you're bullying me! I'm just stating the fact that you're not very mature and logical in your arguments! But, thanks for teaching me a lesson on humility anyway ;)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Those on the yes side presuppose so many inaccurate ideas about evolution as a whole it makes my head spin. And though there have been good arguments on this side, I would like to add something of the human species.We evolve also.As such, we've evolved to such a point that we understand that killing off all of a species affects us in some negative way.And so to continue our rate of evolution, without even thinking about it in these terms, we have evolved in large part to want to make sure things that are part of the overall Eco-system survive.Of course there are those, namely the other side, which are less evolved. Like an alligator or bear, they don't realize or don't believe that using all of the sources available until they are gone will lead to their own demise. Luckily most people are smarter than that.While saving cute pandas and penguins is great. Ultimately saving endangered species is saving ourselves. It is a product of our own evolution to even understand it is in our best interest.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Sure we've evolved quite a lot. Sure we've got the ability to figure out "some" of the things about our environment. But we don't know everything yet. We might never know everything because there's just so much to know. For instance, how do you know we shouldn't continue to be as selfish and destructive to the environment as we've been so far? May be we should speed that up a little bit even? I mean we don't know how the human body will react to the new environment of carbon rich atmosphere. What about species that may be created to specifically adapt to this new environment of "pollution"?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

"We don't know everything yet"I don't understand, please explain how that statement relates, in any way, to the topic?I mean, sure, we can be as selfish as we want, and pollute our world to death. We might as well make a headstart and start throwing trees into a furnace for the sake of "selfishness." The whole point of our side of this debate is that we as human beings, as a superior race, can make a difference, we just need to open our eyes and notice what is going on in the world. From there, we make a positive difference as best as we can. God created human beings with superior logic because they were destined to become a superior race? I agree whole-heartedly, so why aren't we making a difference more often? Why aren't we trying to preserve natural life without overpopulating it?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Hey! Focus!The topic is all about "SHOULD". Should we or shouldn't we?Now try and focus on that.My point is we don't know everything about the world yet. How it worked. How it works. How it will work. For all we know, another species of dominant animal will rule the Earth in a few million years instead of us. Why should we continue? What's in it for us?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Hey! Focus!I have clearly made the point that we should. Ff you are too incompetent to see it, then don't bother arguing!Now try and focus on that.We as human beings are unable to accurately foretell the future; even science doesn't give us an accurate conclusion as to how the world exists years from now. What we can say is that we are naturally superior, and through this we are able to make decisions that create an impact on the world. Now, let's try and avoid a problematic impact and focus on preserving life. If an animal isn't impacting now, chances are it isn't going to impact any further in future. Where is the reason that this animal should be denied life? Why shouldn't we continue in these heroic acts? How does this conflict badly upon us?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

KILL THEM KILL THEM ALL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!