azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Wow ... just ... wow. So I guess 'objectivity' is just an illusion? You went so far to say that (within a human) 'survival' is a 'subjective' goal... I'm done here since it appears you go to great lengths to not be wrong- you just said its subjective for hitler because a lot of people wanted him dead, yet, the meaning of objective says to disregard all feelings, opinions, etc.; now you say all life itself is subjective... THEN substantiate that assertion with natural selection??? As for the title; you said better--in every way shape or form--is subjective. So it's relevant to the debate because once an objective better is established, then it can be said what is better for the earth can be objective ... or not but the fact of an objective better can further this issue. If you claim better is entirely subjective then the debate cannot proceed because, basically, you've concluded that you answer is a factual 'no.'
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

'survival' is a 'subjective' goalIf you seriously cannot find the flaw in arguing both that human survival is objectively good and that the existence of humans is objectively bad, then the deficiency is yours.you just said its subjective for hitler because a lot of people wanted him deadIt is as subjective to say that it is better for Hitler to live as it is subjective to say it is worse.substantiate that assertion with natural selectionNatural selection demonstrates whether certain attributes are more/less likely to survive given conditions, it does not dictate that such survival is objectively good .once an objective better is established'Better' denotes that something is more apt to produce a certain result - e.g. a second kidney is more apt to increase human survival.In order to show that something is objectively better, you must show that the result - e.g. human survival - is an objectively good one. Not only have you not done that, but you are specifically arguing the opposite.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Tigers cause a healthy balance in the ecosystemNature doesn't care about a healthy balance - if animal populations get out of "balance", they die out - nature doesn't care which.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

The intrinsic animals of that ecosystem care. Humans cause such imbalances, which, ironically, has a direct effect on them- and they know this (which is why human intelligence is overrated).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

The intrinsic animals of that ecosystem care.Exactly - they subjectively care. Thanks for proving my point once again.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

No ... they don't. It's instinctual for all animals to 'care' about their environment. Since this is instinct then it is objective. One animal is not going to not care unless it was psychologically problematic. (Dont you dare say 'because of the "unless" you've even further proved my point.')
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Since this is instinct then it is objective.100% wrong again.Please read even the most introductory information on what objectivity is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

No need to. Instincts are facts. Objectivity is addressing facts-which I have been doing.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Is it an objective fact that today's oxygen concentration is best?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Instincts are, by definition, subjective.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You've also mentioned cows/dogs/cats, if humans never domesticated these animals--like all other wildlife--they would have thrived naturally- this case cannot call for terms such as 'better' because the domestication of these animals was not some sort of 'rescue'. I actually don't know why you use this example. A tiger lives about 12-16 years in the wild; in captivity they live up to 25 years. While in this captivity they suffer from extreme depression; mental disabilities due to inbreeding (esp. when it comes to white tigers); confusion as a result of instinctual urges that cannot be acted upon; and more. Sure the conditions (protection from diseases, poaching, brutal fights and other events they could run in while in the wild) are better but their life is not. Most cows do not graze naturally and freely, esp. in America, because of the rapid meat productivity (the 'non-most' being in the small expensive organic section in food markets).This ring a bell? I never avoided your question.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

This ring a bell?yes, as does my response.I never avoided your question.This was not the question I accused you of avoiding - it was the issue of the objective better.see here
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Also my apologies, you are right, I did not completely clarify with you. I've given a complete clarification amongst several others, so I assumed you understood my point (I thought you read my other clarifications).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Also, Yes, I am. Though "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" is not coherent in any language to which I am familiar.Okay Spanish and French c+ student you obviously did not, or perhaps could not understand what I meant by that.As for what I said, it was a text error that you're insistent upon addressing, I know proper English, but there is a such thing as--especially with phones--auto correct amongst other things. But of course your profession in English compelled you to address a syntactical error. Since this bothered you so much, pardon me.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

There have been a few grammar-Nazis on this site - I have not been one of them. I pointed it out because that part of your statement was completely incoherent. You can complain that I called you on it, or you can try to clarify your intention.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

If people misperceive your argument, perhaps there is some onus on you to make it better...Perhaps you should work comprehensively on your abilities to assess simple premises. Incorrigibly refuting my premises because of a misperception? I say humans cause destruction; you say so did asteroids.... Fallaciousness is consistent with all of your disputations. You act as if I said humans started destroying the earth upon their evolving. You say 'all life will die out anyway' as if I'm clearly not talking about the essential causation of such near-apocalyptic future.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Its doing what it would naturally do at a regular pace at a more slower pace...- understand now?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

How would plants doing what they would naturally do (photosynthesizing?) at a faster pace be objectively better if there are no humans?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

The plants rate of development, has a correlation with the atmosphere. Plants growing slower, as they still are being destroyed by humans, has a positive correlation with oxygen level decrease, ozone late depletion, carbon level increase. As these increases and decreases remain consistent, the plants development remains imposed upon, which causes the Inc and Dec to remain persistent. As they persist, as a result, life conditions start to become--exponentially--unsustainable (except for roaches bacterium and such), things that will not evolve as the life did post-human.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

The amount of solar radiation effects the plants development, in turn this effects photosynthesis. Do I really need to explain why a plant photosynthesizing is beneficial to all life? You payed attention in elementary school right?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Do I really need to explain why a plant photosynthesizing is beneficial to all life?You need to explain why animals that did exist in the past or might exist in the future under different conditions would be objectively worse than you're imagined ideal.If chemosynthesis became the source for most life on earth, would it be objectively better/worse?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Also 'better' can be objective, you smoking is worse for your lungs. Humans not having cancerous cells would better for the species. Having a high IQ for learning is better than having a Low IQ. Having two lungs is better than having one, in the event you lose one, you chances of surviving become worse.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Can you really argue what is better for the human species and that it would be better if the human species did not exist in the same debate without the least bit of cognitive dissonance?Better depends on what you are trying to achieve - if there is no intention, there is no better/worse progress towards it.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You also claim I avoided your 'better' point yet you avoid any sound disputation or you just point out an irrelevant part and try to deter the dispute. Example:Me: Tigers live in Asia.You: No they live in India.Me: India is apart of south Asia.You: India is apart of south Asia actually south Asia contains [...]You see now? Me: humans cause unnecessary earth destruction; You: Ice age caused destruction without humans.Me: 'thinking' What the hell.........? -_-
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Yes, you have specifically and repeatedly avoided my "better" point.I asked:- whether a snowball earth would be "better"- whether an earth with or without dinosaurs is "better"- whether more complex animals are "better" than simpler ones- whether smarter animals are "better" than dumb- whether more animals is "better" than fewer- whether a hotter earth is "better" than a cooler one- what is the optimal sea level- what is the ideal atmospheric makeup- define "better"etc.And you have answered precisely none.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Life is a natural cycle of planets in the Goldilocks zone, so to say that one life form off of one such planet would benefit the planet, wouldn't be a valid argument at all.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

No, Earth was created for humans to dwell in a place to bask in the glory of the lord. This is just my view however, so don't take this as fact.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

If anyone looks at our world, they would know that nature is the most violent bloodthirsty survival of the fittest place there is. Animals start eating their prey before it is even dead. At least humans have the compassion to make a clean quick kill with a bullet. Were it not for humans, there would be many millions of other species extinct today because we have it in our power to wipe them off the face of Earth or save them from extinction.The only humans with an animal behavior are those who support even late term abortions for any reason. They would tear Babies apart inside the womb before birth. Democrats refused to ban partial birth abortions (with a life of mother exception) and it took George Bush to have the compassion to stop the inhumanity.Earth would be better off without pro abortion fanatics. The value of human life is cheap today, just as in nature.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Actually, Makerere University former Faculty of Computing and Information Technology already had and still has a project on offering studies at low cost, using learning technologies. This can be seen from http://mak.ac.ug/documents/CITElearning.pdf
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I agree with Laurillard that education is still on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies. In my opinion, when people first recognised the potential of these new technologies, they were very quick to put most of their faith in them, and governments were very quick to put new policies in place trying to enforce that these new technologies become available to all students. However, looking back not much has been done over the past decade. South Africa is a good example of this. If one reads the 2004 White Paper on e-Education, there are many claims made, for example that computers will be distributed to schools throughout the country, which have not been followed through. We cannot just expect technology to magically transform learning, when we are not putting the infrastructure in place to allow for this to happen.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I agree with you this is the same story in Uganda. We make policies but nothing is done to ensure that the policies are well implemented.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I do support the motion and we are all aware the the debate is valid for corrupt African leaders and selfish ones who spend the entire national budget on military arsenal
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

How do you make the link between education being transformed through technology, and the issue of corruption of african leaders?
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Education has never come cheaply. Most of the African leaders invest in remaining in power than creating sustainable infrastructural development projects like in the Education sector. By discussing this topic therefore, we look at the issues that would hinder the "brink". Good enough it won't hinder because they are being forcefully asked by the electorate to account for the national resources
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

How do you make the link between education being transformed through technology, and the issue of corruption of african leaders?
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I already responded to this..You could also check out what I posted to Prof Cheryl. The tittle of the article is simply a tip of the iceberg. more sectors especially education are compromised at the expense of the military expenditure
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

So does the USA - but they still move in the field of ICT in Education - why? Is it more to do with context?
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Are we not going to take advantage of the affordance of vote-ability?
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Dear Emma, we are not going to. Please make the arguments knowing they will be objectively looked at by neutral parties.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I subscribe to Laurillard notion that yes, education on the brink to be transformed... just to draw on recent developments... most governments and higher education institutions around Africa have policies or white papers promoting the use of ICTs in teaching & learning... One could argue against... if one looks at Laurilllard view from a developing centext (Africa) this is true... however in developed countries (Europe & USA) this would not be the case... because some institution run entire courses online... for example MOOCS...In a nutshell... my take is... education is yet to be transformed in an African context... and host of reasons contribute to the slow development...funds... infrastructure..etc
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Impediments to ChangeAdoption of the mandate to change higher education will require major cultural adjustments. While the demands of the external environment have rapid and radical change in higher education, the internal environment has cultural textures that make change very difficult.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

Laurillard's statement was not specific to the African context, it was a broad statement. Education has been transformed, and is continuing to transform as a result of advancement in learning technologies. The factors that hinder the speed at which this transformation is happening is outside of a technological affordances context. It relates to training, infrastructure, buy-in from educators etc. The possibilities are there, in some cases, unbelievable transformation has occurred. In other contexts, these external factors are still catching up to the potential of the technology that's out there.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Though Laurillard these not talk about African context. I think it is paramount to debate using our own African context. Since we have the most challenges and we are the most hit. Remember we are the ones to improve our own continent.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

And we have been doing this, despite the challenges we face. Makerere & numeric are 2 of MANY examples. See examples Michelle put forward as well
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Higher education is on the brink of a revolution as a result of education technologies. The challenge to educators is to preserve the essence of traditional education while changing with the times. The following constructs illustrate and support my position.Value of Traditional Education As Robert Zemsky (1995) and others have pointed out, higher education's core values will be at severe risk if a larger share of the market for undergraduate education is secured by nontraditional providers. Proponents of the residential university experience will have to develop credible and persuasive arguments for the value of the programs they offer. As we seek to redefine the strengths of the physical university, we must attempt to draw connections between the experience of an on-campus living/learning opportunity and the development of social and cultural characteristics that add significant value to the graduates universities produce (Noam, 1995). Extracurricular activities such as student government, the newspaper, and cultural events compound the value of the residential educational experience, and that experience will continue to be sought by those who can afford it.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Well, the fact that we're training in educational technologies justifies that we're almost there, otherwise, some of us wouldn't be in UCT as in this class taking this module. What do you guys think? What we're studying here is edge-cutting technology for a very bright learning future using technology.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

Studying ICTs in education does not mean that ICTs are in the brink of transforming education.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

If you analyse the technology that is available most of it requires an initial capital input and is not always free. Let us use the example of Second Life. It was free but now universities have to pay to use it and many have stopped using it. The "brink" has not been met. Some technologies make an appearance in education then become irrelevant.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Looking at our project, a case study of university of Bia, believe you me, such universities are very many in Africa, outside South Africa. What is however very interesting is that the academic and administrative managers are well trained and exposed people who have very good policies to support and hence kick-start learning using educational technologies. Meaning that anytime there is funding, the possibility of having learning technologies quickly adopted is high and cannot be underestimated.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Just to give you a case study for you to base on. At our Department of Open and Distance Learning we have programmes with many students distributed across the country. They come from a hard to reach areas with no internet access and limited electricity. So when we talk about use of ICT when shall such students understand what we are talking. Please remember we are from Africa and these are the characteristics of our students.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

I am struggling to understand the point you are raising. Does the question specifically refer to the African context?
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: White team

Again, many Africans have access to mobile technology which is transforming distance education at Makerere University
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

In very many developed economies, we can say this already happened. In the African context, the "on brink" status is being realized through creation of several policy creation, monitoring and evaluation institutions at national and regional levels, such as the Pan-African e-Network Project. This is an AU initiative with very many international funding agencies. Details at http://www.panafricanenetwork.com/
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

I do support the motion that Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies , however, has been on the brink for some decade now with the following reasons:The advent of ICT has brought a lot of changes in all aspects of human endeavours. Its use in transforming learning and teaching practices have continued to be on the brink for some decade because of inequalities and poverty on the continent. Hence, the whole idea of digital divide. Factors such as these have continued to delay the massive impact of technologies in educational context. On the hand other, many teachers and educator still lack technical know-how. This has equally contributed to the delay of technological transformation in the field of education.
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

What is happening is that the cost of running conventional education programs is becoming very high and should have been phased out long ago. The donors supporting education programs in developing contexts know this very well hence the need to swiftly move to learning technologies in aiding education delivery
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

although I am entering the debate past start time of the match - very pleased to see my Black team mates - leading!
Debate: Education is on the brink of being transformed through learning technologies
Side: Black team

Some of my opponents cited cases of open university, virtual learning and so no. Yes! These cases are just negligible when compared to millions of people have no access to technology- enabled educational environment. I think that using success stories of developed nations as a benchmark for assessing technological transformation in education is wrong.