azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

When one or two corporations go out of business, i'm totally cool with that. It's social Darwinism in a Capitalist world.But when banks and health insurance companies are failing and the housing market plummets, millions of people are screwed over by that no matter what. We need to stop that NOW, and focus on environmental issues later.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Well, with evolution, extinction is the norm, not the exception. And there are often periods of mass extinction.Those facts apply in business as well.And yes, people are being screwed. But if we don't fix the environment, well have a real mass extintion on our hands.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

that's interesting and all, but your mass extinction theory hasn't been proven to the point that WE'RE responsible for it or what direction it's actually going. after all, over the past 100 years the climate has gone up and down.what we do know for sure is that the economy is currently fucked and needs some major patching up. the environment can wait till later. or, until some new theory comes up (first global cooling, then global warming, in 20 years we can hope for global time rifts).
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Global warming, global cooling.... It's all climate change. You're more hung up on lables than facts.I happen to believe that every precaution should be taken. Not just because I believe in it, but because this is something so serious that I'd rather bet on it being true, than be sorry that I didn't.Hitler didn't seem like a problem worth dealing with until it was too late.We don't get so lucky as to have our apocalyptic weapons of God come out and tell us they're coming. This isn't a movie. We aren't going to discover the asteroid in just enough time to destroy it. We aren't going to stop the atomic bomb with 1 second left on the clock.We have to prepare for climate change because we have a lot of evidence in it's favor, and the consequences of not preparing for it are apocalyptic.There are also other bonuses to preveting climate change, both environmental and economic.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Actually, in order to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our effect on the environment would mean to eliminate ALL uses of carbon emissions. Eliminate ALL uses of paper and plastic. Eliminate ALL uses of any type of oil. Eliminate ALL uses of filtered water (because really, who needs clean water?). In order for US to make a POSSIBLE difference, it would basically mean to eliminate most of everything that we use EVERY MINUTE.Simply making hybrid cars and recycling won't do shit.Not to mention that humans have been through much worse shit than POSSIBLE global warming. What we need to focus on is what we DO KNOW is true. We DID KNOW that Hitler was killing innocent Jews and political prisoners. To me, that's enough. But, unfortunately, the same attitude existed then that exists now "we don't need an unnecessary war". In fact, we didn't fight Hitler until we were attacked by the Japs. Just how we didn't fight Saddam until we were attacked by al-Qaeda. We knew that Saddam was threatening us with nuclear weapons and we knew that he mentioned plenty of times before that he was restarting his nuclear program, but we didn't pay much attention because it would have been considered an unnecessary war. Plus, all the citizens he murdered for shit reasons didn't matter enough either. What it took was an attack from a random enemy who's related somehow. We would have never fought Hitler were it not for Pearl Harbor... Whoa... off topic. But anyway, we knew the bad shit he WAS doing, so it doesn't relate to Global Warming, which still has many different theories.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

I have attempted to debate you on this issue a million times, but almost every time you end up pussying out. If you want to argue the science of global warming (since you think it to be an unsettled issue) then I am perfectly willing.What also confuses me, is that at the same time that you say that global warming probably isn't happening, you seem to consider yourself an expert on how we would need to stop it if it was happening. We can easily curb carbon emissions to the point where the warming effect will only be mild, if we have international cooperation from nations like China (Obama has already met with these nations, and they have agreed to cut emissions significantly in the next 40 years).Recycling, has very little to do with global warming when compared to the burning of coal and other fossil fuels. It is however still important, because (as I told you in an earlier debate about paper vs. plastic) there is currently a giant patch of plastic in the middle of the pacific ocean that is larger than Texas.Filtered water? WTF?To sum up here is your argument: -Since fixing the problem might require a lot of effort, let's instead do nothing. -Because Hitler killed a lot of Jews, we shouldn't act on the science of Global warming-Also, despite the fact that every major scientific organisation agrees that global warming is happening, there is still so much doubt and all these vague theories (which you convieniently neglected to mention)So come on... I am very prepared for you to debate me on the science, because clearly one of us doesn't understand the facts of climate change.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

I understand that it is a legitimate debate, and I don't claim to know everything about it.My main problem is that other people seem to think that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAPPEN TO US SINCE GLOBAL COOLING!!!the hysteria over it has always been my problem. I just feel we should focus more on something that we DO know is a major problem right now instead of something that is still in debate.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Let me put this in the simplest I can, so that you can understand it fully:It is not in debate. There are no legitimate skeptics in the scientific community that have presented valid evidence that a) global warming is not happening or b) global warming isn't being caused by humans.In a previous debate you brought up the republican's minority report on the climate change consensus. I then explained why the whole thing was bullshit. I'm not going to go through the whole thing but if you would like to bring up specific points made in the document, or any other scientific arguments against global warming I would be more than happy to address them.Pyg, I understand skepticism, but there comes a time when doubt becomes unreasonable.(Also, global cooling was never really considered a significant problem by the scientific community...only by time magazine. At the time of the publication on the issue about global cooling, more scientists were actually concerned about global warming, despite the fact that there had been a slight decrease in temperature. Listen to scientists, not the media.)
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Doubt is actually very reasonable, especially when someone is willing to put more hysteria into an idea than they would into a well known fact where people are starving and dying in gutters.Sorry if i got bigger problems.the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.The points are simple. I don't care about which party believes in what. I disagree with Republicans on many things, and sometimes even think that they care more about corporations than they do about our lives. But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it. So why should there be so many unnecessary regulations and restrictions that only hurt us if we got bigger problems, like, failing banks and housing market.“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.That's not why the scientists statements were dismissed. The scientists ideas were dismissed because they were inconsistent with the evidence.But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it.Wrong“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”Alright, you almost did what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence, and you gave me an unattributed quote. Fine, I'll just explain the basic argument behind global warming and why CO2 emissions do have an effect. And like you I'll copy and paste (but at least I'm copy pasting my own words)"The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)).Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat."So know, tell me which part of this you have a disagreement with, and while your at it take a look at this graph and explain why it's just a coincidence that 1) emissions 2)CO2 concentration and 3) emissions all show the same upward trend at the same time.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

mainly because you act as if the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.and i forgot to say who said that:Dr. Takeda Kunihiko who's the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

So it will take the pearl habour of climate change for you to care about it?Ps. Don't you dare bad mouth recycling. Recycling is not just about climate change. It's about conservation of limited resources. Same as hybrid cars, and plenty of other things you probably don't care about.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

oooo, i'm so sorry i "bad mouthed" recycling.I guess I better censor myself in a debate. don't wanna hurt mother earth's feelings (she's a schizophrenic bitch if you ask me).
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Don't belittle me by suggesting I believe the earth is in some way concious.You're a pig. I'm sorry that you refuse to get help, or even entertain scientific fact. That is your problem, not mine.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

you're the one who said "Don't you dare mock recycling" or w/e. As if it was that big of a deal that you needed to scold me.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

It is a big deal...........................................................
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

yes, I forgot how much words can hurt Mother Earth's feelings.sorry bout that.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Good thing I didn't forget how much of a dumbass you are, otherwise I might actually be offended.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

yeah, that was uncalled for but i guess i can't expect a better retort than that.how sad.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

While I agree that something should be done about the economy, and that the negative effects of our current recession are serious, I would argue that far more people will suffer in the long term if we don't fix the environment now.You can read my other arguments for the specifics, but for brevity's sake I will give you the highlights of what will happen if we allow climate change to continue unabated.-Increased aridity leading to crop failures-Rising sea levels that could displace millions of people in the next 100 years-Better climate for bugs that destroy both crops and trees-Mass extinction of animals, and general disruption of world ecology (this one, once done, cannot be undone)So in short, there will be less food to support our ever expanding population, there will be millions of refugees, and the biodiversity of our planet will suffer tremendously. If this doesn't hurt the economy (and in turn the human species as a whole) more then our current recession then I don't know what will.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Capitalism has done the mankind good in the sense that life quality had improved drastically. It is done in the expense of our future generation. They would need to build the nature back to its balance. It might not be that bad if they able to build it back to balance. We might just destroy ourselves then.Economist? Haven you heard of something call "Not finish eating your food for lifetime in a night?"
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

I have never fully understood your view. Yes, I believe global warming is very, very serious. Directly or indirectly it will cause much suffering and death. The ones who are going to suffer host, however, are not westerners in industrial economies. Our way of life has too many safe guards. If sea levels start to creep up we can move our homes; if there are massive droughts we have food alternatives; hurricanes might become more dangerous but when our levies fail we have the resources to evacuate fairly quickly. Non of these things can be said of the poorest billion.They, the third world citizen: where because of how isolated and non-diversified their economy is; because of poverty and over population; because of corrupt governments and lack of infrastructure, they will feel the effects of global climate change both first and hardest. The average North American pockets close to $50,000 a year. A family of 4 could still live comfortably with only $10,000, as long as their expectations drop too -- no TV, no backyard, and a lot of rice for dinner. Someone making 5$ a day doesn't have that kind of income cushion. If a Vietnamese agri-worker's crop has a drought -- he starves.So it seems to me that if one increased the standard of living of the worlds poorest to something comparable to western standards one is in-effect preempting or at least limiting the disastrous effects that global warming poses to humanity. So far as has been discovered the only mechanism to lift people out of this type of grinding poverty is capitalism and largely free trade. Thus, while we always attempt to help both, the economy is always first insofar as economic growth saves vulnerable human beings at once from the perils of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow."Capitalism has done the mankind good in the sense that life quality had improved drastically. It is done in the expense of our future generation."Absolutely not. The worst case scenario (a very implausible and inconceivable scenario at that) is that future generations would be trying to live as if no economic growth had ever occurred -- with vulnerability, uncertainty, and much suffering. Their condition would be the same, therefore, if the industrial revolution had never manifested and capitalism never taken off in the first place.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

er, you're arguement is actually brilliant.It may be unfair to have such a short reply,but it would seem to me that the financial circumstance of the individual, namely those of a third world country, has no real bearing on the impact to those impacted, of an environmental collapse. Whatever that may be.I would even say that as you pointed out very well, Westernized nations would survive extraordinarily well comparitively (compared to those dying of say the ocean rising two inches... yeah that's all it takes to kill millions) if the entire economy were to completely collapse but if the environment were saved.Luckily, as is always the case with technology it seems, you do not have to take a step back to go forward two.We simply must go forward with completely clean energy, and whether the environment is effected by it or no, one thing is for sure, the world economy, not just Western, would improve drastically.I have a feeling you see that already though.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Oh great one, we await your genius invention of free energy device that creates unlimited energy at no economic cost with zero pollution. Truly you have made Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann look like a total fool, for you have shown S = (k*log W) to be entirely incorrect, and that actually, the correct equation is S = (whateverwewish)!!!! Amazing your genius astounds us all. For now ashes and smoke can be freely transformed into candles, paper, Mahogany desks, and Al Gore bobbleheads. You have single handedly re-invented civilization, and the fundemental laws of the universe!!!! Now times arrow is but an arbitrary distinction misunderstood only by old guys like this:
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

we await your genius invention of free energy device that creates unlimited energy at no economic cost with zero pollutionYou don't have to wait:1. sun2. wind3. rain4. tides5. geothermal heatI realize you may need some time to take in the pure genius of these revolutionary inventions.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice

Okay Willy Loman, if you think your such a hot salesman, then please peddle these free miracle inventions to some other gullible schmuck. Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: Why not Fix Both

There is no reason to assume that if temperatures changed they would be worse. It is a religious belief to assume that temperature change caused by man would be bad, just because man caused them. If ocean levels rise, poor people can move their homes just as well as rich people right? Their homes are much smaller. Often they don't even have homes. Only the stupidest moronic movies show ocean levels changing fast. No reputable scientist is talking about more than 1 or 2 inches in hundreds of years. Gravity at that rate is a greater threat to homes than ocean levels rising. Why would you assume that temperature change would cause massive droughts? Flip a coin. You got 50% chance, right? Why not assume that mankind is helping by preventing the next ice-age? You say that some place is going to be too hot. What about Canada? What about Siberia? Are they going to get too hot also? Poor people are unable to gradually move North 1 or 2 feet a year? For each drop in the GDP more poor people die: there is less money for charity, government programs, etc. You could spend billions of dollars moving turtles across the road, resulting in less money for the poor. Every dollar government spends on solar panels is a portion of a dollar that they can not spend on poor people. Poor people, except in New Orleans, do not generally live behind inferior levies, while rich people have gold plated levies. You are just saying some of the stupidest stuff. People who live in Chicago, New York, and Tokyo all face the same natural disasters as each other, to a large degree. It sounds like you have a psychological need to write compassionate sounding things, instead of actually following logic to advocate the most obvious policy. Obviously we want to raise the standard of living of all people The only thing we disagree about is methods, perhaps, and motivation. But the whole question is environment or business? Obviously we need a balanced approach that is pretty meaningless unless we get into specifics. I don't think I understand you points at the end. You think the industrial revolution started capitalism? What are the important aspects of capitalism, to you? To me the important aspects of capitalism is freedom to sell your goods and services. This existed with cave men who were able to trade spears for meat. But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with spending money on the environment or the economy, from your perspective.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Obviously, the economic issues we are facing are massive. It seems to me that these must be fixed first, in order for us to then have the ability to focus on environmental issues. Addressing our environmental concerns requires money, and in our current condition, there is no money for this particular line item.