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

No you're not.As an ethical debater (if that's what you are) you'd not add points to your side of the debate without making or breaking arguments towards the actual topic. I suggest you contribute directly to your side of the debate, otherwise I'd be justified in excluding you from further involvement.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

No you're not.It has now been three days since I have responded directly to the topic of this debate.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The changes in the environment do not and will never cause non-existent abilities to develop in organismsHave you thought about my example of people with different amounts of melanin in their skin and where they live geographically? And how that helps them deal with sunlight? Please share your knowledge.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Please share your knowledge.First and foremost, melanin is not a non-existent ability. It is a pre-existing characteristic found in apes and other mammals, amphibians, avians and other animals. Evolution tinkers already existing traits. Second, Melanin did not develop because the environment changed. Shifts in environmental characteristics did not "cause" melanin "to develop" in humans. The environment works on the distribution of pre-existing characteristics across a population--not in the appearance of a novel characteristic in a population. Again, mutations in genes that code for things like hMCH (human melanin-concentrating hormones) did that. So, the appearance of melanin and its subsequent benefits were a complete accident--to answer your initial question. Its distribution of frequencies across the human population was not.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, well can you read this and if you can find the occurrences of the word "new" in the article (there'll be 11) it'll focus your attention to where you might be wrong when you say new abilities can't be developed in response to environmental changes.http://www.biology-online.org/articles/sex-helps-bacteria-cope-changing.html Evolution tinkers already existing traitsBuddy, everything must come from something else pre-existing. the appearance of melanin and its subsequent benefits were a complete accidentBull again. If things are always developed in a random/accidental way, how can we even exist? There is such an astronomical number of different things to randomly develop and only one ability to ensure you survive. It's like playing Russian Roulette where you have a seemingly infinite number of chances the bullet will be in the chamber and only 1 chance that it won't. I dismiss your claim, sir.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Ok, well can you read this and if you can find the occurrences of the word "new" in the article (there'll be 11) it'll focus your attention to where you might be wrong when you say new abilities can't be developed in response to environmental changes.Your question regarded environments causing new abilities to arise in humans. The environment does not do that. Even the article you've cited does not suggest that this can happen. What the article is pointing to is called horizontal gene transfer, and it is well documented. But HGT is not the environment causing abilities to develop in organisms; it's biochemical transference.Buddy, everything must come from something else pre-existing. Yep.If things are always developed in a random/accidental way, how can we even exist?That's an exceptional question. Random mutations in any population of DNA/RNA replicating biological agents, who have metabolism and maintain internal homeostasis existing in a feedback loop will result in accidents guided by subsequent input and output. Simple English: random mutations are guided by pressures. But when we are dealing with populations of life existing in orders of magnitude, the statistical unlikelihood of evolution actually becomes an inevitability. "What" precisely happens can be considered wondrous happenstance.It's like playing Russian Roulette where you have a seemingly infinite number of chances the bullet will be in the chamber and only 1 chance that it won't. Yes! That's why it's taken ~3.5 billion years for all of this to happen. Evolution is generally a very, very slow process (occasionally punctuated by rapid change).I dismiss your claim, sir.Well, before you dismiss my claim based on statistical improbability, you should do a bit of introspection. Ask yourself the question: what was the likelihood of "you" being born. When you consider the amount of sperm competing for a single egg, the fact that the female reproductive system is geared towards killing off as many sperm as is possible (actually "foreign agents"), that upwards of 80% of all zygotes are naturally aborted before the mother is even aware of being pregnant, the actual likelihood of "you" being born and not someone else is actually so low as to be improbable. Yet, here you are.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

HGT is not the environment causing abilities to develop in organisms; it's biochemical transferenceYeah, call it what you want, but don't pretend you didn't see this at the very top of the article: "Bacteria feel pressures to evolve antibiotic resistance and other new abilities in response to a changing environment"."What" precisely happens can be considered wondrous happenstanceRightttt... it's impossible. If things randomly happen which means there's chaos without order, rules of behavior, it won't just take 3.5 billion years. How about never! In Russian Roullette, if every time I spin the gun barrel I get deaded, all my good qualities will have vanished, ceased to exist and therefore has no more chance to evolve.Ask yourself the question: what was the likelihood of "you" being bornHaving children is never about trying to create a "specific" child. It's about throwing an army of sperms out there to search for ONE egg. One of them is bound to make. That's how we keep having babies my friend. At the time just before I was conceived, my father didn't have a private conversation with the sperm that was going to createn me and say "Lookie here feller, it's your time now!"... So the probably that "me" specifically was going to be born is like you said "improbable", but the probability that a child was going to be conceived is so high that people are having abortions left, right and centre!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

"Bacteria feel pressures to evolve antibiotic resistance and other new abilities in response to a changing environment".This quote doesn't rebut my point. It isn't the environment causing abilities to develop. What's happening is horizontal gene transfer. The environment simply doesn't have a mechanism to effect how gene coding and expression changes. So it has no direct impact on genetic change. It's passive in that pressures (what is actually in the environment) dictate whether changes that do arise in a genome are beneficial, disadvantageous or neutral, and subsequently whether those changes become more or less frequent in a population.Rightttt... it's impossible. If things randomly happen which means there's chaos without order, rules of behavior, it won't just take 3.5 billion years.Not at all. This might be true if evolution was completely random. But it's not. While an event like a mutation: the loci, the type of mutation and the subsequent result is entirely random, selective pressures guide organisms towards conservation and fitness.Let's mix and mash the roulette and conception analogies. Let us pretend for a moment that you are a sperm in a population of 20x10^6. We will ignore all external factors naturally acting against your survival (female immune responses to foreign gametes and semen etc.), pretend that all the sperm in your population are both functional ("alive and not "dead") and healthy, assume that every sperm has an equal chance of fertilizing an egg and that there is only one favorable outcome: you fertilizing the egg and only the possibility of the egg being fertilized as opposed to not being fertilized.That is: P(A) = f/p (where f is a favorable event and p is the number of possible outcomes). We end up with P(A) = 1/20x10^6. There is a 0.000005% chance that you will be the sperm to fertilize the egg. That's basically a statistical impossibility. But you do win, because here you are instead of someone else. However, here's the rub. You're not the only favorable outcome and you're not the only one trying to fertilize the egg. There are 20 million other sperm also trying to fertilize the egg. And the chance of conception exponentially increases with the number of favorable events. Simple statistical principle, when the number of chances reaches or exceeds the probability calculus, the outcome becomes an inevitability. So instead of 1/20x10^6, you get 20x10^6/20x10^6. Here's where the roulette comes in. Let's say that survival is the same thing as fertilizing the egg. That's "success". Even though the odds of you, personally surviving this game where the odds are stacked against you is exceedingly low, you're not the only one playing, you don't only get one chance to achieve a favorable outcome and the number of chances exceeds the probability calculus because of the number of organisms in your population doing the same thing. What happens? Survival is an inevitability. While you may not survive, others almost necessarily will.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Even though the odds of you, personally surviving this game where the odds are stacked against you is exceedingly low, you're not the only one playing, you don't only get one chance to achieve a favorable outcome and the number of chances exceeds the probability calculus because of the number of organisms in your population doing the same thing. What happens? Survival is an inevitability. While you may not survive, others almost necessarily will.Firstly, thanks for the mathematics.Now, let's get back to specifics, we're talking about abilities and the fact that they're randomly developed as opposed to being developed on purpose specifically to deal with the environment. You're saying that even though the chance of one member developing melanin is slim, the fact that there is a near infinite number in the population developing something and each member gets more than one chance, that melanin will inevitably be developed in time.With this, you're making 2 very unlikely assumptions:Assumption 1 - We have a near infinite number in the population. - We actually don't. At this point in time on Earth we have a very large quantity of life (I don't know if it's anywhere near the infinite number that you require for a positive ability to become inevitable), but near the beginning we probably had ONE living organism, maybe TWO, perhaps a BILLION, but that's not a big number in the grand scheme of things. Assumption 2 - Randomness does not kill you - Randomness is randomness, it doesn't lean towards preserving life (otherwise it wouldn't be random). If those first few simple microscopic lifeforms developed something and it killed them (either directly or indirectly), we won't be back to square number 317, we'd be back to square zero in terms of Evolution. No more chances. So early on in the history of the universe, the development of something to help you survive is actually no joking matter. So no randomness.So you say: "While an event like a mutation: the loci, the type of mutation and the subsequent result is entirely random, selective pressures guide organisms towards conservation and fitness."But I'll say that Evolution is not random and neither is all the little processes no matter how microscopic.This quote doesn't rebut my point. It isn't the environment causing abilities to develop. What's happening is horizontal gene transferOk, for the time being can we agree that "cause" is the wrong term to use because it suggests direct and active involvement.So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it. Relating this back to the debate topic, the changing environment is of no threat to life on Earth because it will continue to evolve. Life goes on with or without the species that are endangered.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

No. Keep up with the analogy; Melanin is only one possible outcome out of an indefinite number of possible outcomesYou're still making the 2 unlikely assumptions I mentioned.Its importance to survival is irrelevant to whether it was the result of a random eventNo, it's very relevant. Randomness almost certainly guarantees no more Evolution, but here we are, so it wasn't random. It's important that you see that it wasn't random. How it works I don't know, but I'm sure scientists are continuing their efforts to find out.If you really think no component of evolution is random, then go out there and seek your data. Otherwise, keep the misconceived conjecture to yourself.I'm not one to devote my life into this work, I respect and encourage those who can, but i'll say that my opinion is not misconceived. My opinion is born of general observation and knowledge. The very fact that we're here from a beginning of simple, single-celled lifeforms says that those early microscopic mutational processes were not random. That we haven't worked out the pattern, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

With all this knowledge, we still don't know the big picture (you having admitted to that), we still don't know how everything works, and then we still don't know how everything works together. Things are "random" until another discovery is made. But I guess you'd know best, cos you're apparently at the edge of discovery of a pattern somewhere.I'm also tired of reading all your educated bs as well. So while my general knowledge and observations of the world being limited to books and TV and internet webpages and won't measure up to firsthand knowledge of this field, experts in the field will certainly be able to give you a run for your money.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Genes replicate imperfectly and at different rates. The locations where this imperfect replication occurs is unpredictable, the effect this imperfect replication has is also unpredictable, and what kind of imperfect replication occurs follows the same unpredictable pattern. But the fact that we are here suggests you are wrongNope, the fact that we are here suggests that it's not random and that if anyone thinks it's random, it's due to their ignorant of the pattern that is yet to be discovered.Approximately 130 mutations occur in humans before birth. I'm going to wager that the human zygote wasn't making plans on what was happening to him/herNope, the human zygote has no conscious control over what happens, but all the 130 mutations before birth knows exactly what they're doing and when to do it. That's why you'd end up with a human baby and not an elephant or a random lump of cancerous cells.So no, my opinions as an uneducated individual are far from perfect, but if all that education does is make you blind to the patterns of the world and simply call it "wonderous happenstance", I'm glad I haven't spent all that time getting one.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

if anyone thinks it's random, it's due to their ignorant of the pattern that is yet to be discovered.If something is yet to be discovered, then surely everybody is ignorant of it?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Valid point. Perhaps what I should have said is "if anyone thinks it's random, it's due to their ignorance of the possibility that a pattern will be discovered."
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I said So instead, developed abilities are retained and become more prominent in a population in response to the ever changing environment around it.You said Not necessarily. Remember, it is the selective pressures in the environment that determine whether or not any genes and subsequent traits will become more or less frequent in a population. A “response” to environmental change really only means that there are shifts in reproductive trends—some members of a population get to reproduce more than others, this shifts with changing environments and so does the distribution of changing genes in that population.We said the same thing using different wordings.The impact of one population of life impacts, ultimately, all populations of lifePerhaps, but how it will impact (good or bad), and to what degree, we still don't know.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

We said the same thing using different wordings.No, we're not. Some developed abilities are not conserved.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Creationists are so backwards.I know I'm right, because I was raised hella-super religious to the tenth power.If one is actually under the impression that some god created everything, and they are not simply spewing whatever corporate interest most recently hijacked their religion,they would be even more into conservation than the "unwashed" Evolutionist.I mean, your god loves and created all things. Shouldn't you be trying to keep them alive?When did god become so bloodthirsty? Why wouldn't god want people to conserve? I can think of at least a couple places in the Bible where it specifically says to conserve things like grains back during Kind David's time. Why would your god encourage conservation on that scale, but be like "oh just kill all the (insert species) if I wanted them to live I would have made them smarter/faster/invisible.It's just dumb NVYN. You cannot argue for killing from a religious perspective. It makes you a modern day Pharisee.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Dude, if you've read all my posts you'd know i'm all for saving everything if we could... I'm disappointed at your accusations :(
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

And yet, you label your post as "Yes, stop saving them."Your post contradicts your side.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, I'm gonna make this clear so you won't be confused:I personally believe in God and that we should save endangered species, however I've chosen to represent the opposition for the sake of challenge. So while I'm arguing that we shouldn't save animals, I represent the side that doesn't believe in God. So to sum up:I actually believe in God and saving the animals, but in this debate I don't believe in God nor saving the animals.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Challenge? You are contradicting yourself and calling it a challenge?Okay, sounds illogical to me, but I'm not one to push my belief on others.Clearly you have no belief in what you are actually saying in regard to animal extinction, because you understand as well as I that human superiority is no excuse for standing in the corner. If human superiority mattered, then it would act as evidence that it is more noble to act upon this, and do our best to preserve natural life.If playing God is how you define saving endangered species, then it seems that you are a little confused; though I can see how easy that could happen. You have gone off track by saying that as humans we play God when we save animals, because playing God involves choosing decisively what is born into this world. Now, in order to explain how these are contradictory, I'll have to get a bit complicated, I hope you don't mind! When God created the world, he also created the life that was to exist within it. He gave humans superiority in order for their species to maintain a higher status of living in comparison to other animals on Earth. In doing this humans were granted more than just primitive adaptations, we were given logic; something that is being applied in this debate. Our adaptations allowed us to develop ourselves in other areas and our mental capabilities allowed us to think, learn and understand. This takes us to today, where we are still thinking, learning and understanding ourselves and our surroundings, which also leads us to the understanding of our surrounding ecosystems. We are able to recognize how an animal is meant to live through the study of its habits and living environment, and therefore, are able to identify whether or not an animal is behaving or living unnaturally. This is where we hit the issue; humans can identify a species that could potentially, or are, going extinct. For some, human instinct tells us that it may be an unnecessary species, and therefore, unrequired in natural life. However, for others, it may be an entirely different story. Most people would believe that it is morally right to give nature a helping hand, and so they do it. The question at hand is how does this differ from playing God? God is not morality, morality does not come from God, therefore human morality is human belief; what we were created with. Saving an animal isn't the creation of life either, it is the preservance of life, something that most believe is morally right. Long story short, we are born with morality, and that if it is morally right to save a species of animal, then where is the reason to stand aside?If to most people it is morally right to preserve life, then where is the reason to go against morality? If that isn't enough, then perhaps I'll just have to argue the fact that I believe in morality and that I believe that we should preserve what life we can. If people like you, who demand an explanation for everything, can't understand that, then I can't agree with you. Perhaps now you realize why I argue my personal belief in a debate.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Bravo! As incoherent as your writings can be, I can just see that you've made some sort of point and thank God you actually have a conclusion at the end there, otherwise I'd be quite lost...So basically, you're saying to continue saving the animals because preserving life is morally the right thing to do.To that I say "Great!" But I don't think nature account for moral values. We can try to save them all, but we won't be able to, this is because extinction is like an expiry date on a species, if it's meant to go, it will go regardless of human efforts. Sure we might have contributed to a few species going extinct, but that's what happens in nature, all life on Earth compete for resources to survive, if a species can't compete well enough, it fails the game of survival and make room for a new species. So let's not waste any more efforts in trying to do something quite futile. Instead, let's put all the money and effort into eradicating world hunger or something.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

:PI know, I've explained but I only come here very very drunk anymore, sometimes I miss stuff. You're cool don't take it personal. There's some point there somewhere I just have a varying point of view.