azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

I will assume that you know of discoveries that defy the laws of nature (I.e. quantum mechanics). So semantics in this situation does not apply. Humans have evolved to do the opposite of what is 'intended'- for example your genitals are intended for reproduction yet people castrate themselves. So to say that it is natural for one to castrate oneself is absurd. Your heart was developed with the intention of life sustainment. Semantics are entirely relevant. The only reason quantum mechanics fall "outside of nature" is because you have defined nature according to a limited human interpretation of the "laws of nature". Your argument is that humans, our actions and our byproducts, ought to be defined as extra-natural... and somehow you find that linguistic contortion less absurd than avoiding the human-centric fallacy that we are distinct from everything else (how very special we must be).Regarding the tangential issue of castration, this developed as a social (by)product with potentially non-individualistic, non-reproductive benefits (e.g. survival is necessary for procreation, and this can place the collective above individuals in increasingly complex societies). Even where it purely dysfunctional, to hold castration as unnatural on that basis alone you must conclude that nature never produces any dysfunction and that it is a purely functional mechanism... which is patently absurd.Also what I mean by 'life' is a systematic food chain (I.e. sunlight/CO2/H2O-plant-bug-bird-spider-snake-etc.) Your claim of the flora and fauna does not include a massive reduction of O2 which in that case they would not survive (except bacterium). Your claims need to remain inside the whole scope rather than subsections.Thank you for misrepresenting my claims once more. My express point this entire time has been that you have failed to present any substantiation whatsoever for any of your claims (e.g. that humans will live long enough to create such a massive O2 reduction), and that this taken in conjunction with empirical evidence of an adaptivity greater than your initial claims suggested casts considerable doubt upon your still wholly unfounded assertions.It is increasingly evident that you not only lack the necessary evidence to support your claims, but that they are grounded in an ironically anti-human yet human-centric perspective impervious to reason. Given your repeated inability to proffer evidence and your consistent misrepresentations of my statements, I am disinclined to engage with you further on this subject.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Funny that all you have been doing is misrepresenting my claims from failing to interpret them correctly. You've claimed numerous times that I propagating a human-centric view when I'm clearly suggesting that humans--and only humans--destroy the planet in such ways that no other species can. Further, you also seem to not realize that humans are indeed special because of there ability to do what is not prevalent amongst all other life (intentional self-destruction).Also, you still have not substantiated the notion of 'how humans staying/being here benefits the earth' seeing as the point of the debate is addressing how we have and are destroying the earth thus us not being here would not have caused said destruction --human destruction (simple logic). Since your only purpose here is just to promote the proper use of 'red herrings' I will not continue in this dispute. It appears I've succumbed to your sophistical professions; I take full responsibility.(PS: next time stick to the subject at hand; you appear to delude a sound argument to your favor; sad indeed.)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Species would die out soon or later anyway, not really an issue. However we are capable of creating poisons and chemicals that do harm the ecosystem but cannot happen randomly in nature.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

What mortals can truly enjoy the earth besides humans? There is little point for it without people to appreciate it.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

I say no, because 'better' and 'worse' are assessments of relative value- in the absence of humans, there are no known creatures on the planet capable of assessing value on that level.Compare: If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around to hear it, does it still make a sound? No; the fall produces mechanical vibrations. Sound is what we call the subjective experience produced by our brains interpretation of nerve impulses from the ear, which are triggered by mechanical vibrations within certain frequency ranges, above a basic amplitude threshold.Just as the existence of 'sound' requires an ear and brain to receive and interpret vibrations as sound, the existence of 'good,' 'bad,' 'better,' and 'worse' requires a sensory organ of some kind, as well as a brain, to observe the various traits to be valued and assign them a value.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

in the absence of humans, there are no known creatures on the planet capable of assessing value on that level.They might not have be able to assess intricate details but they would have a 'natural' relief- wildlife would have plenty of forestry to house in; the storms they encounter would be less violent; ecosystems would remain balanced; etc.. I know it doesn't matter because they don't perceive these benefits as humans do but I'm not talking about 'perception' I'm speaking of the direct effects that wildlife feels even though they might not know why said effects are happening.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Some would have a natural relief. Many species, however, have adapted to survive with some dependency on mankind, and would see quite the opposite. There are also many cases of species threatened by other species introduced to the biome by man, and without the efforts of man to contain and control the invasive species, risk extinction themselves.Some individuals and species might be aware of their lives changing for the better, some might be aware of their lives changing for the worse. None would be positioned to observe sufficient information to make any kind of value assessment on the planetary scale. The debate is entitled "Earth would be better off without humans," not "Most extant species would be better off without humans." Even if we ignored the inability of any entity to make such a value assessment, it's far from universally true even in a worst case scenario.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Many species, however, have adapted to survive with some dependency on mankind, and would see quite the opposite.But said adaptation could potentially be discontinued. Unless you're implying evolutionary adaptions: "Said species have evolved to become dependent on man". Though I wholly understand some species' unnatural distribution and displacement could entail nonconformity to their 'newly' found surroundings; but these species being maladaptive would not have been necessary if it weren't for homo-sapiens. Dogs/wolves, for example, would not have been successively mutated to the point of lacking hunting essentials e.g. slender legs, aggressiveness, senses, etc.. Perhaps I should have named the title "Earth would have been better off without humans". That said;"There are also many cases of species threatened by other species introduced to the biome by man, and without the efforts of man to contain and control the invasive species, risk extinction themselves," would further supplement my notion.------I concede to the 2nd part, except, just for the fun of cherry picking: "None would be positioned to observe sufficient information to make any kind of value assessment on the planetary scale" would imply an objective fact that no other species can assess situations on the planetary scale. Of course there is no evidence, but it could be the case that another species can intellectually interpret planetary epidemics as being a 'special[sic] causality' (a cause derived from a species). Also, to clarify, by "Earth" I mean judgmental life therein. And by that I mean wildlife that can recognize unnaturalness (e.g. zoo animals are depressed/stressed because they cannot adjust to these extremely unnatural environments even if they are raised therein. They also have confliction internally with their instinctual urges and their inability to act thereof.)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

That statement makes no sense....Humans are apart of the earth, which means its akin to stating "The earth would be better off without itself."
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Not really. A more equivalent statement would be like Earth would be better off without a cancerous lump.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

You think of humans as cancerous?Well, humans don't just harm the planet they help and protect it as well.Sometimes the planet harms itself but sometimes it still helps itself.So your example isn't even close. Mine is equivalent.Yes.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

No, humans help what they've destroyed. The earth does not "hurt itself" the destruction is to us (e.g. Tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) but these events happen in places where it is suitable (i.e. tornadoes aren't prevalent in forest, rather, grasslands. But when we build on these grasslands and a tornado storms through, it is only destruction to us.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

So you agree that humans help.Too much sunlight can kill plant life. Lightning bolts set fires to forests.The earth doesn't harm itself?Hmmmm...
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Hmmm.... Was this disputation supposed to be intelligible? Natural wild fires are beneficial.I specifically stated humans help what they destroy.Overexposure to the solar rays can kill plants- and it does. Do you know why? Because of depletion in the ozone layer; why is the ozone layer depleting? Because of an unnatural amaount of pollutants such as carbon. Where are these massive amount of pollutants coming from? Cars, meat production factories, etc. Where did said example come from? Human species.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Hmmm...Is that a trick question?Wild fires kill animals and their homes. How can they be beneficial if they only cause damage?Like nature, humans don't just destroy, they dismantle and use what they've dismantled to make earth more habitable. Overexposure to the solar rays can kill plants- and it does. Do you know why? Because of depletion in the ozone layer; Hmmm... That doesn't make any sense.Plants ability to resist sun rays is not connected to the ozone layer.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Wild fires are not beneficial....... Stay in school please.Like nature, humans don't just destroy, they dismantle and use what they've dismantled to make earth more habitable.The contradiction within your disputation within a few sentences is funny.wild fires are not beneficial nature makes the earth more habitable"Wild fires" are apart of nature. But according to you, that natural event does not create a more suitable environment... So?Plants ability to resist sun rays is not connected to the ozone layer.Lmfao. Oh, my, fucking, Zeus. I'm done with this disputation. You've annihilated me, such formidability cannot be emulated. Hats of to you.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

You said they're beneficial, not I.There is no contradiction. Nice job at misquoting.Please stop making your troll accounts so obvious.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You said the earth "harms itself" and substantiated that claim exemplifying 'wildfires'. This would imply that this wildfire is not beneficial since it such a 'harm'.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Yup that's my point. What's yours?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

My point is that wildfires are beneficial. Thus successfully proving your notion of wildfires being non-beneficial false.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

My point is that wildfires are beneficial. Thus successfully proving your notion of wildfires being non-beneficial false. You've failed to explain how they are beneficial, if you actually believe that they are. And I've already given an example of how they aren't beneficial.You stated this in another response.Wild fires are not beneficial....... Stay in school pleaseIt's clear to me that you don't know what you're saying.Due to the opposition's incoherent arguments and inability to remain consistent, ProLogos wins this battle.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You are just as unintelligent as that absurd mindless statement. Wild fires are not beneficial....... Stay in school pleaseYou have a hard time (do to your physiologic deficiencies) comprehending simple implications. That "....." meant 'a pause for stupidity'--think of it as "wow." "Stay in school" was to mean, simply, that in school you learn how wildfires are beneficial. Jeez man, does everybody need to explain self-explanatory statements? I don't think this site is for you since this requires some comprehension.PS: this is what you get for copying disputations that some other unintelligibly-minded person made. You waited until "JustIgnoreMe" pointed out what he falsely thought was contradictory, then decided "oh yeaaa, Due to the opposition's incoherent arguments and inability to remain consistent, ProLogos wins this battle." (Also, *opposer's not "oppositions".) All in all, you just made yourself look like an ass. And whoever liked that statement obviously has a hard time with reading and comprehension just as you.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

"Stay in school" was to mean, simply, that in school you learn how wildfires are beneficial.Really? You learn it in school? Then tell me how they are beneficial.Even if you manage to, it would only support my point, that nature harms and helps itself. PS: this is what you get for copying disputations that some other unintelligibly-minded person made. You waited until "JustIgnoreMe" pointed out what he falsely thought was contradictory, then decided "oh yeaaaMore incoherent rambling.(Also, opposer's not "oppositions".)"Opposition's" is proper.All in all, you just made yourself look like an ass. And whoever liked that statement obviously has a hard time with reading and comprehension just as you. Aww ubutthurt? :) Yeah I don't think so... since you're just trolling.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

How am I butt-hurt? You made yourself look stupid by courageously disputing me while being completely wrong.. Lmfao, FAIL. THEN you tried to be smart about while still being wrong. And you're calling me butt-hurt for pointing out your vacuous dumbass statements? Okay, I guess I'm "butthurt" then.More incoherent rambling.Lmfao WHAT?!? Oh, so it's incoherent to point out someone who gives disputations that they would not have gave if it weren't for someone giving them the idea?? Haha, have a nice day 'would-be' adversary.PS: "Opposition" is plural (meaning more than one person I.e. a group). I'm the only one disputing you so "opposers" is the correct term. Lmao and I'm trolling. Clearly you have much to learn before you try an argue with someone who finished elementary school.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

How am I butt-hurt?Going off topic to insult someone is indicative of ass pains. If the pain persist then it may be a sign of hemorrhoids.Which would mean that you have reached one the most painful stages of butt hurtedness.Lmfao WHAT?!?YOU'RE RAMBLINGS ARE LACKING THE SENSE!P.S: "Opposer" isn't even a word. Opposition was the correct word and isn't just plural.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

P.S: "Opposer" isn't even a word. Opposition was the correct word and isn't just plural.Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh. My oh my are you stupid. Opposition represents a group when using the word as a replacement opposite people (e.g.The opposition moved for the admission of exhibit 308; [Singular] the opposer suggested that he should have came in first place).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Says the one that is making up words.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Hmmm... Is there more than one?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

You: "Natural wild fires are beneficial."You: "Wild fires are not beneficial"The contradiction within your posts within a few hours is funny.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

You really have a hard time at comprehension. That of a child. Clearly I said wild fires are not beneficial with the "....." as to mean 'brief pause for his stupidity'. Then I stated "stay in school" meaning in school they teach you how wild fires are beneficial which he clearly implicated was not. You attempting to abase me caused yourself to look like a complete idiot. This further supplements my notion of your cognitive abilities being that of the incompetent. (You probably won't comprehend this but hey; some get it, some don't.)
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Wild fires kill animals and their homes. How can they be beneficial if they only cause damage? - this jog your memory? I did not misquote I paraphrased.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Right. I pointed out a reason why wildfires aren't beneficial after you stated that they were beneficial. Then I asked a rhetorical question.Care to tell me why you paraphrased that?Either state what you think is wrong or right along with whatever you're quoting or paraphrasing or don't bother responding.I'm not playing your guessing game.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

"Better" is a human judgment and would therefore be meaningless if humans didn't exist.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Better is just an English homo-sapient sound used to depict an objective situation. If humans were not here all life would survive and live 'better'. Which means something to them. And plants are life and are good for us, and they are slowing starting to fail to do their natural do which is worse for us. Basically, what you just spewed was absurd.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

A) Most animals that have become extinct did so before homo-sapiens existed - including several huge mass extinctions.B) Better as an "objective situation": Was a "snowball earth" better? Is an earth objectively better which has dinosaurs or does not have dinosaurs?and they are slowing starting to fail to do their natural do which is worse for us.(is that English?) Isn't "worse for us" irrelevant if there is no us?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Your "(A&B) " do not comport with this debate.(is that English?) Isn't "worse for us" irrelevant if there is no us?Apparently you are multilingual because you ask of the content of my syntax yet you are responsive?As for the "is no us," I am going to suggest you asses my previous disputation... because your misperceiving of it causes doubt about my perception of you- of course you may not care, but I do.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Your "(A&B) " do not comport with this debate.They directly address claims you made - so, if my statements are irrelevant it would have to be because your claims were themselves irrelevant.You: If humans were not here all life would survive and live 'better'.My A) is an assertion that "all life" did not "survive" when "humans were not here" and is a direct and verifiable refutation of your claim.You: Better is just an English homo-sapient[sic] sound used to depict an objective situation.My B) poses a couple of questions meant to be unanswerable in the hopes that you could, on your own, come to the conclusion that your claim is nonsensical.Apparently you are multilingualYes, I am. Though "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" is not coherent in any language to which I am familiar.I am going to suggest you asses[sic] my previous disputationI did, and "slowing starting to fail to do their natural do" still doesn't make sense and "worse for us" is still irrelevant in a debate which presupposes the absence of humans.because your misperceiving of it causes doubt about my perception of youIf people misperceive your argument, perhaps there is some onus on you to make it better...of course you may not careRight - if you make vacuous arguments, I am not going to be very inclined to respect your opinion.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

I knew it; this disputation of yours clarifies that within your assessment misperception is great.It is not me who makes vacuous arguments, it is you unintelligible nonconforming deluded mind that can not ascertain the point I'm trying to make. By consistently implying that I'm addressing life post-human; and by me offering a clarification; this lets me know you are either (A) Incorrigible or (B) Cognitively disabled in regards to 'reading assessing and comprehension'.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

By consistently implying that I'm addressing life post-human;If you are not "addressing life post-human", then you are not addressing the debate at hand.and by me offering a clarificationNo clarification has been given.You have only asserted, without any substantiation, that A) more survival and 'better' living would necessarily follow, ignoring the actual history of evolution & extinction without human input, and B) that "better" is objective - which is false. Are more complex animals "better" than simpler ones? Smarter "better" than dumb? Is it "better" to have many animals fighting for dependent resources, or relatively few animals living in abundance? If nearly every species that went extinct did so without human input, was that earth "better"? If an asteroid hits the earth, but could have been avoided by human intervention, would it still be "better"?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Cognitive disability then. Clearly I'm talking about humans and nature, not fucking asteroids and Dinos. This is because I don't mind natural phenomenon, but *unnatural phenomenological destruction -- unnecessary at that --- is what is what I am addressing. These post-human extinctions were natural (aside from the asteroid- in a 'sense'). But there was still animal life nonetheless. This 'human' cause destruction is completely different. Human destruction will potentially destroy all life (except maybe a few bacterium). Because as soon as the plants die out, so does the oxygen level, then comes other life that can sustain harsh conditions (a few plants, cockroaches, microorganism, etc.), then all that's left, again, is bacterium. This bacterium will not evolve into an elephant like the mammoth (in regards to your 'post human extinctions). Basically, the way extinctions post-human worked itself out was natural, which is why it worked out (I.e. mammoth to elephant) but human reciprocation of that is false. Humans are destroying ALL life not SOME life as the post-human NATURAL destruction caused. (NOTE: asses this before you give a response, I'm sure I clarified the point I was getting across)