azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Also, you will note that Black Death killed quite a hefty sum of people. Black Death may have occurred with or without the Thirty Years' War.But the black death wouldn't have happened if we had current medical technologies and hygiene standards. In other words: both war and disease have gotten a lot better in our modern age.I stated 'pre-Industrial' wars. Germany's pre-Industrial wars were not as devastating as WWII. WWI took place after the 'Industrial Revolution'.You misinterpreted my point. I was saying that until the industrial revolution disease was actually more harmful than weaponry.1. Grocery Stores mix frozen meat with fresh meat; when one freezes meat after they buy it, the frozen meat is being 'refrozen', which one would argue could taint it.How does freezing meat taint it?As far as your complaints about foods, I could point out that the average life expectancy in the early 20th century was 30-45 whereas currently the world average is over 67 years (higher in nations where there are a lot of processed foods like the U.S.), or I could point out that processing foods allows it to last a whole lot longer. What's most important though is that if it matters so much to someone they have a choice. You can eat organic foods that aren't processed and don't use pesticides for not a whole lot more money. In other words, your whole argument is moot. If enough people demanded organic foods then that's what more people would sell. The fact that the whole market isn't organic shows that people don't care and it isn't having that much of an effect on their life.I'm sorry about your (gross) medical issues, but I (and many others I know) have never had any issues with processed foods. If you want to have a real bad experience with food though, go to a foreign country that doesn't have our same food standards (some place in Africa or Asia for example). If you thought you got sick before, just wait. This is what food was like before we had the FDA to look at our food.And they are completely trustworthy?I don't see why not. Sorry I don't share your paranoia, but the people at the FDA are hired to make sure we have safe food. If people started dying because of eating food approved by them then these people would obviously lose their jobs. Otherwise we would vote out the people who appointed the head of the FDA (yay for democracy!).Codex AlimentariusOooh, skull and crossbones with a scary sounding name! I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure that this Codex Alimentarius thing isn't nearly as insidious as the women makes it out to be. It isn't an attempt to make certain treatments "illegal like heroin". It is an attempt to set up standards for foods. These standards include the amount of pesticide residue that can exist in certain foods, which is one of the things that your articles was complaining about. What's more important is that Codex Alimentarius is not legally binding for any country, it's just recommendations.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

I find it funny how selectively you exercise your skepticism. You'll dispute a scientific study, but if your uncle tells you something then it may as well be a mandate from god...all that matters is whether or not it supports what you say.You get a point for this paragraph.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Why should he get a point for making erroneous claims?First of all, I have not mentioned any relations in this debate, much less an uncle. I find it funny how selectively you exercise your skepticism. He is judging me despite not being in a position to do so. He does not know in the slightest to what extent I am skeptical.You'll dispute a scientific study, but if your uncle tells you something then it may as well be a mandate from godNo, and I double-check nigh everything which I can remember from conversations with people (please note that, whilst I do converse frequently with an uncle of mine, I look for sources on everything he says. He is an aged man with an aged brain, however much I may love him, that is the fact of the matter).all that matters is whether or not it supports what you say.Funny how I am called the idiot when I give a dozen sources by people who rarely give any sources at all.You get a point for this paragraph.Idiocy.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

I think the huge links in this argument are screwing up the page formatting. Could you run them through tinyurl?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

If you want to go back to pre-industrial society, societies still exist, and they are known as the Amish among numerous tribes in Africa and Asia.Before cars and when horses were widespread, there was one problem; the manure become immensely cumbersome and smelly that in urban and rural areas, leaders knew something had to be done. Therefore, the car was invented; however, it needed oil and gas. Well, whales at first were the only source of oil, and whales were hunted near extinction until a man discovered all the oil under the ground. Now, we are at the same predicament as our predecessors were in formulating innovative ways to reinvent our technology.Therefore, it is hard to say that we are still in technological infancy and maybe approaching technological adolescence.Can we survive? Yes, but we must think outside the box and reinvent.Are we self destructive? Without a doubt.Humanity existence is a process through progress, yet it doesn't mean that humanity's existence is necessary.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

humanity is dammed by our own inelligence -coz we humans have ever used anytin properly........we don trust human resourse but we trust machines which in return leads to lack of jobs, greed, crime ,a society which lacks empathy , sympathy , gratitude, respect.anything used in a limited quantity is good but we either overuse it r not at all use it..........we r the xtreme species............we destroy our lives an other's tooooo.......we r the one who created modern technology..........wen we create it we put our name in front of it tellin everyone we CREATED IT but wen it is responsible 4 destruction r if it is harmful instead of puttin our name first we blame the modern teachnology. if we can stop blamin others an clean our own dirt.........it wud lead to a much beter society.....an we can give the credit 4 that to us
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

coz we humans have never used anytin properlyIncorrect. We are an amazingly intelligent species.we trust machines which in return leads to lack of jobsLuddite.a society which lacks empathy , sympathy , gratitude, respect.I do not think you can generalise our societies like that.we destroy our lives an other's tooTrue, but 99% of the population is not guilty of such a crime.but wen it is responsible 4 destruction r if it is harmful instead of puttin our name first we blame the modern teachnologyActually, that is what you are doing.if we can stop blamin others an clean our own dirtYou are the one blaming others.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

intelligent-yup!but intellegence not used 4 the ryte causes
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

intelligent-yup!but intellegence not used 4 the ryte causesI agree, it is wasted creating mediums for idiots to post their opinions
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

If we get rid of anybody who's bent on dominating the world then we might have a chance. This means most western societies. 90% of their actions (the dominating type not just europeans) has been towards harming the world whereas the other 10% has improved it. If only they'd spent 100% of their energy into improving the world... then we wouldn't be where we are now. More of a paradise less of a shithole.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Before western ingenuity, the world was a shit-hole. Now we have hot water and electricity on demand. I think this is better.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Now we have hot water and electricity on demand. I think this is better.Now we have poverty in India, Africa and China. I think this is not better.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

There was poverty in India, Africa and China long before technological innovation. They are  comparatively worse off, but most are better off in real terms. In other words a poor person in China is way better off now then he was even 100 years ago. Modern medicine and economic growth have seen to that.You can't argue that because some people benefitted a lot and others benefitted less that technology and innovation have been bad...that doesn't make sense.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

before technological innovation.We're not talking about technological innovation here.In other words a poor person in China is way better off now then he was even 100 years ago.There's a lot more poverty now in those countries than there was before europeans came and raped it. Do you think there would've been such large or atleast similar scoio-economic problems currently faced by those countries? Obvious answer is no.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

We're not talking about technological innovation here.Well that is the title of the debate, but w/e.There's a lot more poverty now in those countries than there was before europeans came and raped it.Not actually true. There is a lot more prosperity in China right now then there has been in their entire history. There are still poor areas, but even the poor are better off then in the past. Now if we are looking back to the beginning of the 20th century then we can definitely see that much of China was economically exploited by the west. As far as the actual raping and killing of people: that was mostly the Japenese. They did terrible, terrible things to their people. After we beat the Japs in WWII (you're welcome China) the Maoist government took over in China, and the Chinese went ahead and killed themselves for a couple decades. Once again: not Europeans.Since then though, China has been experiencing unprecedented economic growth thanks to their partial adoption of capitalism and the technological innovations of the west. In addition, China now has the miracle of modern medicine thanks to the west. In fact, I was involved in a group that raised money for Chinese orphans with cleft pallet.So in summary: if we were in the 1910's you may have a point. But 100 years since then, China can't blame any of its current issues on the west, and can thank America in large part for its current growth.Do you think there would've been such large or atleast similar scoio-economic problems currently faced by those countries? Obvious answer is the issues would be worse.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

You don't understand what I'm saying. We're talking about relative poverty. The poorest person in the whole of fucking america probably owns as much as the richest person in the world did 500 years ago.We're not just talking about China here either. Africa and India too. But let's stick to China for a bit seeing as you're right that it was Japan and Mao who kind of fucked them a little bit too. China has for most of it's history been better off than most other civilisations right? It does have a few dark spots i.e. building of the Great Wall and some Repression and Aristocracy here and there but in general it's been pretty fucking good. Then what happened when the westerners and japs came? A lot of shit. China isn't the best example and my knowledge isn't so deep but stick with India and you cannot argue that the west's influence on it has been better on it....
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

So you want to blame the west because they surpassed China in terms of technology and power? My point is that even though China may be relatively worse off than it once was, each individual citizen is actually better off because of technological innovation.Also, China has the 2nd highest GDP in the world...so it's not like they're some backwards 3rd world country. You could probably argue that the fact that they now trade a lot with the west has actually helped them achieve this position.So both relatively and in real terms China is better off.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Yeah China is better off now. Just as all countries are better off.My original post said that the West has used it's technology to exploit more than it has used to develop. That's all. If it had used it's abilities to develop then there probably wouldn't be the same issues there are now. Different.. but not the same.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

So you don't really have much of an argument at all then is what you're saying.The west didn't unselfishly shower gifts down upon China and India, but instead entered into trade with them, and although they prospered from it, it would have been better if the U.S. had just given everything away? Basically your just upset because the west was successful and other nations were slightly less successful.In addition, just throwing money at countries doesn't make them more successful. If we can take any lesson from the billions of dollars in aid sent to Africa, its that a country has to develop itself and the best way for the west to help would be through trade, not donations. In trade both sides benefit. One side may benefit more, but that doesn't mean the other side was hurt.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Ahhh i really cannot be bothered to continue with these pointless arguments. I've said this a million times so I'll say it again. Every civilisation has its ups and downs, they all have their time at the top and bottom... all you got to do is see the differences, who's done the best and who's done the worst. I can safely say that Europeans have by far been the most evil. They've improved a little bit... but I don't think it's enough to make up for their past.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

I'm just going to go ahead and give you a little hint: those Europeans that you claim were so evil are dead and have been dead for a long ass time. No one who is currently living has committed any of the atrocities you are blaming and entire race for. In fact, I basically showed you numerous examples of atrocities committed by Asians, and if you want I can detail what Africans have done in darfur and other areas in Africa. Unlike you though I wouldn't blame a whole race for the faults of individuals...why? Because that would be racist.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Lol ok I see.So you're not American. You're andsoccer16. Calling you American is racist?Americans live in America. Apparently that's a racist statement.So is Europeans invaded the Middle East. Apparently according to you that's racist.My dad (Mr. K) used to rape young girls and get paid for it. He made millions of pounds doing this. I've now inherited this fortune of his. I'm now called Mr. K. If you ever call the K's a bunch of child molester's, you're racist. The child molesting K is now long dead. It has nothing to do with me. Not does the fact that I live in a million pound mansion in the Carribeans ok?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

America didn't make money raping you girls. America made its money through industry and now has the largest GDP in the world, and this has nothing to do with immoral business.Americans didn't inherit anything except for a multi-trillion dollar debt which is mostly owed to....oh shit the Chinese.European is basically the same thing as saying white since white people are originally from Europe, and you clearly meant white people. You also clearly want to blame all the world's problems on white people...be honest, if not with me than at least with yourself.I am not responsible for the actions of others, but any damage that may have been done has been more than paid off in foreign aid.You are terrible at metaphors.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Since when did I say American's made money raping young girls?If you don't understand the metaphor then why criticise it?Jheesz...
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Allow me to rephrase my metaphor:America didn't make money raping young girls, or anything metaphorically equivalent.I also like the part of your argument where you ignore everything else I said...I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you have nothing to say to it so that's why you concentrated on the one part of my argument you thought you could rebut.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Why would I continue with an argument that's basically irrelevant to my post?If I start arguing about how horses should shit on the street and you don't reply to it you want me to sit there and tell you you're evading my arguments?Blood money. That's what you have in your pocket right now. Look through the pages of your history. If there's blood being spilt, America is sure to capitalise it. From slavery which built the country to warring for oil which keeps the country running.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Blood money. That's what you have in your pocket right now. Look through the pages of your history. If there's blood being spilt, America is sure to capitalise it. From slavery which built the country to warring for oil which keeps the country running.How can you possibly say you know that about me? You have no idea where my parents came from, or how they made their money. In fact the only thing you know about me is that I'm white. In other words: you are just being racist. You can't stand the fact that America has been successful and therefore try to claim that everyone there somehow earned their money through illegitimate means.If you want some actual history about my family, then you should know that my father was born into a poor family, and essentially worked his way up in the world after working his way through college. Any money I have now, or will have from him is most certainly not blood money, but hard earned dollars.Whether you care to admit it or not, you are a racist, who refuses to accept that any white person can get rich honestly. You also have a serious misunderstanding of history if you continue painting the U.S. as this devil figure, and a misunderstanding of economics if you think that it made money through evil means.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Lol I'm not talking about you as in YOU. I'm talking about America. Duh.You also have a serious misunderstanding of history if you continue painting the U.S. as this devil figure, and a misunderstanding of economics if you think that it made money through evil means.Yeah forreal. Your painting of America as an angelic figure who hasn't benefited off the misery of others is definately correct.If America did not benefit off the misery of others, by either promoting, provoking, instigating or being involved in it, it would be about as 'great and powerful' as zimbabwe...
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

If America did not benefit off the misery of others, by either promoting, provoking, instigating or being involved in it, it would be about as 'great and powerful' as zimbabwe...Wow, you are retarded.I could go on about why America is as powerful as it is today because of Good governance and infrastructure, bountiful natural resources, a very good system of education, lots of creativity and the opportunity for entrepreneurialism, but I can tell that all of this would be a waste since you are clearly fucked in the head. Seriously, we have already established you know jack shit about economics, so it should come as no surprise that you think America is rich because it took advantage of other nations.Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and move on with my life and stop trying to argue with delusional people who could seriously benefit from an education.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Yeah that's it be a good girl and walk away.The proof is in front of you. All you've got to do is read it. Stop turning your head away from it.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

What proof? You provided zero proof, except for proof of your misunderstanding of economics.The government of the U.S. is funded by taxes. These taxes come from the American people. The reason the U.S. is the richest nation is because it has 300,000,000 people and one of the most productive economies in the world. None of this has to do with "blood money".You being too stupid to argue with doesn't mean you've won.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Now we have poverty in India, Africa and China. I think this is not better.There has always been poverty in those places.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Before and after.Before better. After worse. Relatively.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Before better. After worse. Relatively.Today, the common man lives better than the kings of old. Caesar, the most powerful man in Rome, did not have electricity, a constant supply of hot water or super-fast travel. This is better. I understand people like you are predisposed towards wearing loincloths and rolling in the muck like savages, but I quite like modern life, as do most people. I tire of your constant anti-white assertions which are not supported by any form of evidence. If you have something meaningful to say then say it. If not, then kindly retreat into some dark, damp corner of the world and die. India for example.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

So I'm guessing you have no diea what the word relatively means ehh?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

So I'm guessing you have no diea what the word relatively meansNot when it is used incorrectly by the likes of you. Relative to the past, life is better now. Relative to now, life in the past was a miserable affair. You going to refute that or evade the issue by insulting me?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Sigh. You don't know the meaning of the word relative.It's a shame of how proud you are being English yet you don't have the ability to understand the language.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

You don't know the meaning of the word relative.Taken in comparison to something else. In comparison to then, the world is better.It's a shame of how proud you are being English yet you don't have the ability to understand the language.Ignorance is, it seems, an exclusive form of knowledge. The man who possesses it may contradict even the most learned persons, for he is surrounded by an impenetrable wall, a jealously guarded, unassailable fortress of the mind.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Things were basically the same way before we came along. We haven't really improved the situation, but it hasnt gotten worse either
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Statistics (made by white folk so YOU can actually trust them) beg to differ.Am I the only one who actually knows about these things or do you think that these countries were ruled by nomadic sheep before europeans came and stuck their little dicks into the ground.