azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

I agree, the strongest will survive. However, the human dilemma with this is that we are pathetically weak physically but intellectually we surpass every animal on the planet by being that which we fear. Cancer. Spreading as a permanent plague across the globe (a game like plague inc. iphone app is the perfect example of what's happening) that is easily visible from space via light spots in the dark. The advanced system should be considered and compared to the legends of Atlantis and question: Are we heading down the same road blinded by our superficiality and desires?In this night map the light spots are well designed. The north American union (including brazil) is a goblin like figure that is breathing a cloud of terror.America and Canada is a heart with horns Half black and half light. (it's imperfect however)Brazil is "terror" A screaming skull. The UK is a lizardAfrica is a snakeAsia is the devil whistling a tune to AustraliaThe entire east coast of Europe + Africa is the white elephant (commonly used as a symbol in politics [a red and blue elephant with a star in the middle])There are other images to be seen but these are the most clear. I implore you to take a close look at the intelligent and artistic design of our world which I have dubbed "Divinity".and remember, it is not over populated with people it is over populated with stone, brick, factories, roads, and all the like. Humans can survive in a more wild based society this one however is the definition of humans being Necrophilic in nature. We are thriving and growing in a dead world (urban) and we grow best here.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Just to be a point whore with a point. .
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

This world is already Darwinist, if you thought about it you would realize there are human being living on the side of the street while you have others with the capabilities to fly to another place and enjoy their money. With competition comes survival.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

We differ from nature in fundamental aspects. Every living organism in the wild fights daily to survive, we have got people lazying their lives away on a fat and sugar diet, drinking and smoking whenever things get too boring. We are the superior force in this world, we broke the game of life. Sure, we are primates, we are a part of nature, yet our intellectual mind vastly out-competes anything else. We are half animal - we desire success, we crave dominance, we hope for peace. But we are also half computer. We try to understand and look behind the intrinsic assumptions given by our animal nature. We calculate our way to knowledge. There's nothing to challenge us but our irrational selves. Our machine mind has given us insights into the world that enable us to not only kill everything, but break the entire globe into pieces. We are killing everything, including ourselves, in a mindless quest for more luxury. We try to satisfy our every desire, but in the process we only encourage these desires to grow. We can never be satisfied by the means we currently use. This is a predicament for our animal part would like to have it all, and our machine mind knows how to get it. The simple conclusion is that it's our irrational selves that are forcing us towards our own genocide. The animal inside isn't fit to live with our abilities. We should live by the this Darwinian idea, but not in the sense that society should break down into anarchy. The rational people, the people who care and try to stop our self-destruction should be the ones who reproduce. These people are the fittest ones, yet it's the mass consummerism the PR industry advertises, it's the big payroll we respect, it's the primal, egocentric desires we encourage each other to live to satisfy.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

I support this. I can't give too many solid reasons why because anything I say will just be disputed by another's emotional reasoning but here I go.When ecosystems don't coddle one another, they become finely tuned machines of absolute efficiency. Every tiger alive in the wild is an excellent hunter, in the best shape of their life, and of perfectly sound mind (as far as a tiger can get) because those who don't exhibit what it takes to survive...don't.If humanity was survival of the fittest poverty, ailments like Aids, etc, birth defects, and inherited diseases to name a few problems would be at an all time low, if not completely nonexistent.Overpopulation would not be a pressing issue because the natural way of nature would keep us at a perfect or near perfect equilibrium of people to resources.Corruption, would not have room to exist, in a world where everyone is striving to make it to the next day.Religion would not be killing people.As for the diseases. They would not plague us as much. Diseases exist, and they infect animals, but after years of dealing with it the animas acquire immunity to it, while humanity just make drugs that end up making the virus leave, only to come back stronger. We are breeding the greatest virus that will ever hit mankind and it will be outstanding.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

I would like to say that humans, as a collective whole, have moved past the primal, tribal time where we must engage in conflict in order to survive. We are capable of living, co-existing, and co-operating with each other. Not only capable of surviving under these conditions, but flourishing together (and only together). If we all lived only for ourselves, our modern society would be thrown into disarray and almost all of the niceties and luxuries that we enjoy now would be lost, never to return.While 'survival of the fittest' is an interesting idea, it is no longer relevant, and most definitely unwanted for humanity.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Exactly my point. I completely agree with everything you have said. I fully support that point and it is so right.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

To some extent we already do live by this kind of natural selection. We're attracted to people who appear to be physically healthy, have advantageous emotional/psychological qualities, and who are essentially likely to be good mating partners.But the question arises, should natural selection also be applied to our political and social lives? Should be abandon any and all social or moral obligations to allow people to simply fend for themselves? There's something about this that borders on social eugenics. Needless to say, historically that's never worked out so well.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

I would much rather fight like a spartan. I would fend for myself.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

You can already do that, without disbanding society's moral and social behaviors.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Nope. I am talking about pure brutalic hand to hand combat. Killing a man with a damn brick and shit. Like an epic war hero or by simply evolving to have the best adapted genes.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

You may want that (I am 99% sure that you don't tbh) but is it fair, is it what others want, is it inkeeping with the humanitarian morality that humans have constructed, is it beneficial to the survival of the species (the entire goal of SOTF)? If you propose absolute chaos through the world, rampant violence, and a complete disregard for the wishes of others, then I sympathise with your lack of human empathy, and the anger that must run through you.If you have a different reason for your violent fantasy, please outline it?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

You dont understand. Eliminate society and let us function as any other species on the planet. Please. Forget about society, technology, teamwork, etc.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

But why though? These aspects are positive and beneficial parts of humanity. You may not agree with them, but quite frankly, I don't care, and neither does anyone else.What you're saying is that all humans should cut of their arms just because you want to. It's a ridiculous and irrational idea.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Oh my god will you listen for at least a minute. Start from year 1. What would happen if we never colonized and began to evolve and followed survival of the fittest? Thats it. Dont throw words into my mouth. Especially when you simply dont even understand.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

I can actually picture a lot pf people favoring this but I am going to say that maybe this isnt fair for like disabled people. Like if they are blind or deaf or mentally handicapped. It would be very unfair to them.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

This would eventually rid the disabilities off of the earth. A race of humans that can only evolve to get stronger. Can you imagine that?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

No it wouldn't. You might be able to get rid of some genetic disorders (e.g. sickle cell anemia); but chromosomal disorders such as Downs Syndrome are still going to occur because they're a result of mutations and other random factors. Add to that, disabilities which are the result of non-genetic and non-chromosomal disorders. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a result of the mother using excessive amounts of alcohol during the course of the pregnancy. Viral infections can cause disability. Accidents can cause disability.All this will achieve is to eliminate one possible causative factor of disabilities. That's still important and it would still have a beneficial effect; but at what cost? What will we be giving up and a society in order the achieve this goal?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

No it wouldn't. You might be able to get rid of some genetic disorders (e.g. sickle cell anemia); but chromosomal disorders such as Downs Syndrome are still going to occur because they're a result of mutations and other random factors.They die. The people with that disorder disappear. Add to that, disabilities which are the result of non-genetic and non-chromosomal disorders. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a result of the mother using excessive amounts of alcohol during the course of the pregnancy. Viral infections can cause disability. Accidents can cause disability.Of course you can get injured. Then you screw yourself over and the person that didn't get injured lives on like a boss.All this will achieve is to eliminate one possible causative factor of disabilities. That's still important and it would still have a beneficial effect; but at what cost? What will we be giving up and a society in order the achieve this goal?Beautiful anarchy and rebellion. Only the strongest would survive broski.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

They die. The people with that disorder disappear.No. They die; but the disorder will still appear because it's not related to genetic inheritance. It's caused by a meiotic nondisjunction event during the creation of gamete cells. In other words, you could have an ovum egg cell within you right now carrying 24 chromosomes and there's simply no way to know.Of course you can get injured. Then you screw yourself over and the person that didn't get injured lives on like a boss.But that really the kind of society that we want to have?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

But that really the kind of society that we want to have?Of course not. But if it was these things would cease to exist.No. They die; but the disorder will still appear because it's not related to genetic inheritance. It's caused by a meiotic nondisjunction event during the creation of gamete cells. In other words, you could have an ovum egg cell within you right now carrying 24 chromosomes and there's simply no way to know.What is the probability of that happening? If it happens then they become weak and die. The strong survive. The strong survive regardlessly.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

What is the probability of that happening?If both parents are below the age of 20, there is a 1:1450 risk factor.By the time you get to 49, the risk as as high as 1:25.If it happens then they become weak and die.No, they don't get weak and die. It's not every egg cell that experiences meiotic nondisjunction events. It's random and there are no symptoms of it happening. You wont know about it unless that particular cell is impregnated and allowed to carry full term.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

what........."They die. The people with that disorder disappear." Don't you understand that many things can happen no matter what the generations before have had. Mutations can always happen.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Yes and you become weak and die. That is the point of survival of the fittest.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Why is strength the end goal? What about people like Stephen hawking? He is disabled, but he has greatly impacted the physics community in a positive way.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Those are his smarts. I am talking about dominance by sheer evolutionary power. Thats not survival of the fittest since you are talking about him. Strength and increasing all things such as mental capabilities and such.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

So by survival of the fittest, you're talking about an entire assortment of abilities that are all to be simultaneously increased? Such as mental abilities, physical strength, etc?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

I believe it's something similar to eugenics.But I could be wrong.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

What about the smartest and most fit to work in teams?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

fit to work in teamsBloody good question! We only think about "survival of the fittest" in terms of individuals. A lion that hunts without a pack is doomed no matter how fit it is.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Yes exactly. If only Abby appreciated how much of her survival has been due to the efforts of others.She's a Libertarian though. They are a very confused species.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

If only Abby appreciated how much of her survival has been due tot he efforts of others.If only you would suffer from an immediately fast state of necrosis.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

What the actual fuck?
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Just cripple over in the pain of necrosis.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

What the actual fuck? lol you're something else Bikini Lover. That personal attack was quite unjustified. You're just sturin a pot you got no business touching.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

And the point. .Is all about how as a team we are fucking up everything.Water polluted, lives cut short, mass extinction and we are a cancer on this earth. The undying; and with any real knowledge of the disease will show that you don't need to take over the entire body to kill the host.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Yes exactly. We can accomplish so much more as a species if we all help and assist each other. If we all tried hard enough, and people didn't want survival of the fittest then this world would be so much stronger and more successful.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Survival of the adaptable is probably more true
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

I actually think this is kinda what we're living by right now...
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Most of the people on this site would be screwed!
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Agree

Nvm, I might be wrong.......ALL the people, JK :P
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

Ya there are many people that have great advantages and disadvantages. We will thrive much better if we work together. Survival of the fittest makes no sense in todays world because we have the science and technology for everyone to benefit.
Debate: Survival of the fittest is what humans should live by.
Side: Disagree

I disagree. If everyone great and small had no consequences for subduing those weaker than themselves then I would agree. Some people don't have to suffer consequences for their destruction of others. External devices that we call weapons have interrupted the natural order of things.what's going on now throughout the world is unnatural.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

Syrian refugees should be allowed in the U.S because we can support the refugees better than the LDCs. Jordan is accepting about 600,000 more refugees than America, and they do not have the resources to properly provide for the refugees.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

You say we can support Syrians, if so how? The United States already has 610,042 US citizens homeless within the United States. How would we support the Syrians if we can not support US citizens?
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

The Syrians are mostly all already educated, and they acclimate to a new place well, as said in the video. So the refugees would be able to establish themselves and get jobs to provide for their families, therefor they could live well in this country. The United States has the jobs and the money to support their needs.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

How will we supply the jobs you say Syrians will have if the US already has an unemployment rate of 5.5%. it does not sound like much , but think of the population if 318.9 million people in the US/ 5.5 . how many people are already unemployed?
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

In this situation, the Syrians are going through massive killings and you're willing to let them suffer even more? Our homeless are a problem, but the mass murders of these Syrians and the refugees are by far more important.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

Do you want ISIS to kill you Bailey????????????????????????????
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

Since September 11th In America there have been 26 people killed by self-proclaimed jihad terrorists while there have been 48 killed by non-jihad terrorists, almost twice as many. To add to this, most of the jihad terrorists are homegrown and not refugees. While the possibility of an attack by refugees is present, the events in Paris is a perfect example, it is not the most urgent matter.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

ISIS has already issued a statement saying that they WILL come into our country. Do you want to allow one in your neighborhood.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

We have records of everyone that comes through as refugees, if they were to do something terrible,we have a means to find out who they are and stop them from doing more harm.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

What about suicide bombers they kill them selves and the people around them, and we can't persecute a deceased terrorist now can we. How about them apples.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

No we can not prosecute them but we can gather information from them as to how they are being trained, how they execute their attacks, how they get are associated with the groups they claim to represent, how ,if they are not home grown, they got into the country, and most importantly, who they are in contact with. With this information we can study and create a criminal profile. This profile then helps us stop terrorists before their attacks even leave the planning stages.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

Your position seems to be that we let them into our country and learn how to catch them while they kill us. Perfect 😂
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

Is that a racial comment? By saying this, you are incorporating everyone of the Islamic fate as an ISIS accomplice. Your statement just shows that you are incompetent and uneducated about the current issue. Many children do not attend school because they are living in fear. You have no idea of what life is like in Syria! Massive killings and bombings are occurring on a daily basis. How would you feel if the entire world shut you out while your country was at war? Abandoned. Hopeless. Fearful.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

But it is still a major issue that can not be ignored. Letting them in even a few hundred runs the risk of letting terrorists into this country. If something were to the only people to blame are the people who said let them in. That will be a "I told you so" moment after they blow something else up and kill even more innocent people die because we let some refugees in.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

How can we place the burden on LDC countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey when the US is an MDC and we have the capabilities to allow the refugees the opportunity to go through the vetting process and eventually apply for naturalization?
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

If we let syrians wont we let isis in also. That will cause more terrorist attacks.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

There is a correlation between refugees and terrorism? Really?
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

you're annoying mcdowell get outta here.........................
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

In a word: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

So prove it.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

You already know he can; he's issued executive orders on many issues. Here's just a few:https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

Wrong thread. You responded to me asking for you to prove the correlation between terrorism and refugees.I have no doubt that Obama could order the executive order you are referring to. I doubt the legitimacy of you calling for him to temporarily stop a visa process that has existed for decades and that, before San Bernadino, was not problematic. You haven't even said how he should amend the process.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Allow 10,000 in to the US

The United States has the resources to check the backgrounds of the refugees, so we could know if some are members of ISIS.
Debate: Syrian Refugee Crisis 2
Side: Do NOT allow them in the US

We wouldn't know if they were ISIS members because they have the ability to make other passports look the same as the refugees passports.