azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Because our planet is the only inhabitable one. There is no where else that could support life.In our solar system alone, Mars and Venus could support life with appropriate terraforming. In the galaxy, Gliese 581 d is an earth-like planet and it isn't very far away, only 20.3 lightyears.No life has been found anywhere else. People continue to debate life on Mars, but to date life in any form has not been found.There is a difference between not having life and having the possibility to support life.Get used to this planet it's the only one we got.No, it isn't. I for one don't want our species to end in the next ages of Earth's life, taken out by an asteroid or expanding star.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

In our solar system alone, Mars and Venus could support life with appropriate terraforming. In the galaxy, Gliese 581 d is an earth-like planet and it isn't very far away, only 20.3 lightyears.At 20.3 lightyears or roughly 7 parsecs there can't be a determination of a planets inhabitability. They only assume based on its proximity to its star. You can't tell me life is there when we can't even resolve the surface of the dwarf planet Pluto. By the way Mars is far to cold to ever support carbon based life and far to desolate. Venus has too hot of a surface temperature in excess of 700 Kelvin not to mention the sulfuric rich atmosphere.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

At 20.3 lightyears or roughly 7 parsecs there can't be a determination of a planets inhabitability. They only assume based on its proximity to its star. You can't tell me life is there when we can't even resolve the surface of the dwarf planet Pluto. It is a reasonable inference based on its distance from Gliese 581. It is within the habitable range from its parent star.By the way Mars is far to cold to ever support carbon based life and far to desolate. Venus has too hot of a surface temperature in excess of 700 Kelvin not to mention the sulfuric rich atmosphere.Mars is believed to have liquid water, and Venus could support a climate conducive to our life. Both planets could be habitable given an investment towards terraforming, improving the atmosphere of Mars and removing atmosphere from Venus.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

It is a reasonable inference based on its distance from Gliese 581. It is within the habitable range from its parent star.Mars and Venus are both in the habitable zone. None of these planets has any sign of life. So proximity is not enough to determine life, it is only one of many factors that could support carbon based life. Mars is believed to have liquid waterExactly, believed to have water. They make this assumption based on a smiliarity between our river valleys and the rifts on Mars. No ice water has been found, just frozen nitrogen on the poles. Venus could support a climate conducive to our life.There is no way it could. Even if you ignore the 700 Kelvin surface temperature and rich sulfuric atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure near the surface would destroy any living creature. Not to mention the complete lack of liquid water.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Mars and Venus are both in the habitable zone. None of these planets has any sign of life. So proximity is not enough to determine life, it is only one of many factors that could support carbon based life. Mars and Venus were not always as they are now. Mars is believed to have had liquid water, and Venus had an atmosphere which made itself thicker and more poisonous. Still, one out of three is not bad odds. Especially considering how many planets exist in the universe.Exactly, believed to have water. They make this assumption based on a smiliarity between our river valleys and the rifts on Mars. No ice water has been found, just frozen nitrogen on the poles. You might want to read more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_mars There is no way it could. Even if you ignore the 700 Kelvin surface temperature and rich sulfuric atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure near the surface would destroy any living creature. Not to mention the complete lack of liquid water.That is why I said COULD. Future conditional, as in conditional on our terraforming it in the future. We would have to strip its atmosphere, introduce water, etc.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Mars and Venus were not always as they are now.You have no proof to what it was before. You are using historical science based what you think it was before. Mars is believed to have had liquid waterExactly, you believe it did. This does not mean you have evidence that it actually did. Still, one out of three is not bad odds. Especially considering how many planets exist in the universe.All that you demonstrated is that our planet is very unique. You might want to read moreI don't need to read anymore about the supposed water on Mars. The fact here is no water has been found. That is why I said COULD. Future conditional, as in conditional on our terraforming it in the future. We would have to strip its atmosphere, introduce water, etc.You are citing a fictional concept one that is impossible.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

You have no proof to what it was before. You are using historical science based what you think it was before. Exactly, you believe it did. This does not mean you have evidence that it actually did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_mars#Evidence_of_frozen_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus All that you demonstrated is that our planet is very unique. Because our planet is the only one with a star? An atmosphere? Water? Chemical elements? It isn't. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.I don't need to read anymore about the supposed water on Mars. The fact here is no water has been found. So you don't want to correct your mistakes, you just want to make one big faith-based assumption that magic made the earth, and therefore it is special.It is now accepted that over thirty meteorites have been found that came from Mars. These Mars meteorites have provided scientists with a wonderful opportunity to analyze the rocks of Mars. Some of them contain evidence that these rocks were exposed to water when on Mars.In 1983 it was suggested by Smith et al. [145] that meteorites in the so called SNC group (Shergottites, Nakhlites, Chassignites) originated from Mars, from evidence from an instrumental and radiochemical neutron activation analysis of the meteorites. They found that the SNC meteorites possess chemical, isotopic, and petrologic features consistent with data available from Mars at the time, findings further confirmed by Treiman et al. [146] a few years later, by similar methods. Then in late 1983, Bogard et al. [147] showed that the isotopic concentrations of various noble gases of some of the shergottites were consistent with the observations of the atmosphere of Mars made by the Viking spacecraft in the mid-to-late 1970s.You are citing a fictional concept one that is impossible.Because...? It's within the capacity of physics.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Because our planet is the only one with a star? An atmosphere? Water? Chemical elements? It isn't. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.What other planet has an atmosphere like ours. What other planet has observed liquid water? If you want to argue about Europa (which is a moon, but nevertheless a celestial object) then let's go there. Chemical elementsThe Jovian planets all contain chemical elements, yet none contain life. I keep making a simple request: explain how Earth is unique in the universe despite being made of elements and having properties that are not unique to it.It has life!! My request to you is show me another planet that has life. My evidence is our planet, and yours is...? So you don't want to correct your mistakes, you just want to make one big faith-based assumption that magic made the earth, and therefore it is special.What mistakes are those? I am honest about my faith. You aren't honest about yours. Your theories have no proof and you don't have the guts to own up to that fact. Just be honest. So you are saying that meteorites if in fact are from Mars do not contain any contamination? That a meteorite that impacts our planet at an immense velocity and extreme temperature won't fuse with any of our elements. You can't be that naive can you? Because...? It's within the capacity of physics.Of who's physics? It's certainly not anything we are capable of doing.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

What other planet has an atmosphere like ours. What other planet has observed liquid water? If you want to argue about Europa (which is a moon, but nevertheless a celestial object) then let's go there. Venus has an atmosphere, which is what I stated "an atmosphere." Mars at one point had liquid water.The Jovian planets all contain chemical elements, yet none contain life. However they are too far from the sun. Planets composed of these elements exist within the proper range. Gliese 581 d is an example of this.It has life!! My request to you is show me another planet that has life. My evidence is our planet, and yours is...? Life is not composed of anything that is only found on Earth. Its precursor conditions are not unique to Earth. So what is your point? That life requires a planet with certain chemicals, a certain distance near the sun, an atmosphere... common conditions in our universe.What mistakes are those? I am honest about my faith. You aren't honest about yours. Your theories have no proof and you don't have the guts to own up to that fact. Just be honest.So you are saying that meteorites if in fact are from Mars do not contain any contamination? That a meteorite that impacts our planet at an immense velocity and extreme temperature won't fuse with any of our elements. You can't be that naive can you? The experts have agreed that those meteorites contain evidence of martian water. This means that after asking the obvious questions you posed, they tested and found otherwise that it wasn't contamination.Of who's physics? It's certainly not anything we are capable of doing.There's a difference between what we can presently do, and what is possible according to physics. One day we will have the technology.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?Yes. Firstly, we have to find a better place than Earth, then we let all homos live in the Earth. Lastly, we blow Earth up after we took all the resources.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

First of all christjesus you cant live in the earth you can only live on the earth,and second of all that was pretty arrogant of you to say that u should let all the homos live on the earth and take it resources before blowing it up......By the way what makes you better than the homosexual commuity....... I do support space travel we shouldn think that were the only complicated life form in the whole galaxy even the great mind of steven hawking belives that therse other life forms in the galaxy.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

"Yes. Firstly, we have to find a better place than Earth, then we let all homos live in the Earth. Lastly, we blow Earth up after we took all the resources."If you're that desperate to get rid of "homos" do what they did in the "hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" tell them the earth is going to be destroyed and send them of in an "evacuation" spaceship.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Space exploration whets the human appetite for adventure. There are many brave souls around the world who wish to take risks in life. They love adventure, they love accepting challenges, and they love making the impossibilities possible. Space exploration satisfies this human desire of adventure.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Without question! I agree with the thought of unmanned space flight vs. Using people for the short term. Safer!
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

I think there should be a Space program , but I do not think we as Humans will be able to fulfill the Dream of others in space ( Aliens) for a long long time , strictly due to time travel problems, unless they pull a rabbit out of sciences hat.. and one never knows ... I would have never believed many of the electronics we have now growing up as a kid..
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Imagine the results, we could have Empires again! To be honest I don't see why we're sitting around waiting for super highly-advanced aliens to come share their technology with us? That wouldn't happen at all, look at Europe and what they did when they found a continent with nearly no technology.Africa was divided up and shared around, they ended up as colonies because they had no flag and the populations reduced to slaves, the hugely expensive diamonds and minerals were just mined and shipped of to Europe without the natives getting a penny.Now imagine aliens doing that to us, they arrive at our planet claim we're not a true civilization because we dont have a national tea towel or something. They take us all as slaves and claim we're simple animals as 1) we dont speak their language and 2) we look different. It turns out that pebbles are a rare and extremely expensive object in their solar system so they take them all get insanely rich on galactic credits or some other space currency and we dont see a thing.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Yes we should learn about our origins and we should discovery other planets and other intelligent life forms.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Yes, but it only should in private investment. -------------
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

Look, how much does it take right now to send a probe to mars? How much did the ISS take? Millions if not billions. Instead of chucking stuff that fails half the time, why not spend the money in developing an economically viable engine or reducing green house gas emissions?
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

That is well stated. There are many more viable resources that money would be much better served.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

If and when the space elevator get's built, the cost of putting things into space will drop around 99.9909%. It currently takes around $22,000 to put a single pound into orbit, but the elevator could do the same in less than $2.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Look, how much does it take right now to send a probe to mars? How much did the ISS take? Millions if not billions. Instead of chucking stuff that fails half the time, why not spend the money in developing an economically viable engine or reducing green house gas emissions?This is a false dichotomy. That we either fund space exploration and research or the reduction of green house gasses. We can do both, actually.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

How about try to understand and fix what is going on here first before entangling ourselves in dark matter.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Nasa and space exploration in general is responsible for many technological improvements which improved our understanding and ability to 'fix' what is going on on earth.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

What have they fixed with their discoveries? Most of what is learned on our planet is applied to space i.e. spectroscopy, gravity, and relativity.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

What have they fixed with their discoveries? Most of what is learned on our planet is applied to space i.e. spectroscopy, gravity, and relativity.Here's a list:http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

You don't understand your own previous statement. You said that exploring space gave us advantages. I said our discoveries here gave us advantages in space. These inventions were produced here on our planet to explore the universe. We didn't gain the intelligence from matter in space. We built this inventions with the own physics we know and study here.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

You don't understand your own previous statement. You said that exploring space gave us advantages. I said our discoveries here gave us advantages in space. These inventions were produced here on our planet to explore the universe.These technologies were developed for space-related missions but later found use on Earth for commercial products.We didn't gain the intelligence from matter in space. We built this inventions with the own physics we know and study here.The technologies were developed in response to our investment in space exploration. If we did not have such an interest in space, it is unknown if we would have had the motivation to develop them. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

These technologies were developed for space-related missions but later found use on Earth for commercial productsExactly, how much time did these products stay hindered and secret because of space exploration. We are wasting some of our greatest minds on the exploration of the universe. Either way these tools/inventions were created here with our physics. The technologies were developed in response to our investment in space exploration. If we did not have such an interest in space, it is unknown if we would have had the motivation to develop them. Remember that necessity is the mother of invention.That's right we don't know. But I argue with economic drive these discoveries would have been made.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

Exactly, how much time did these products stay hindered and secret because of space exploration. We are wasting some of our greatest minds on the exploration of the universe. Either way these tools/inventions were created here with our physics. All I really get from this paragraph is a deep fear of knowledge.That's right we don't know. But I argue with economic drive these discoveries would have been made.Space exploration provided that drive.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

I agree with that statement. The fact that 90% of our universe can't be explained by natural science. The dark matter and dark energy pose quite a problem. Especially if you don't believe in God.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

I agree with that statement. The fact that 90% of our universe can't be explained by natural science.I think we're doing quite nicely explaining it. Space exploration itself is vital to our specie's continued existence. Disasters across space which destroy planets and civilisations happen all the time, and this is why we need to seed the galaxy with intelligent life.The dark matter and dark energy pose quite a problem. Especially if you don't believe in God."God" is never an answer to a question. It is a placeholder for ignorance.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: No

I think we're doing quite nicely explaining it.No you are assuming what is going on in the universe. You aren't explaining what is going on just projecting your presuppositions. Disasters across space which destroy planets and civilisations happen all the time, and this is why we need to seed the galaxy with intelligent life.You assume their are civilizations to be destroyed. This is not observable. Space exploration itself is vital to our specie's continued existence.No it certainly is not required. Perhaps the only monitoring of the Sun for coronal mass ejections would be vital to our infrastructure. Most of the catastrophes witnessed in space have no effect on us. "God" is never an answer to a question. It is a placeholder for ignorance.Ha! That being said by the one who believes there are other civilizations being destroyed. Look at the universe anything to what we have witnessed and you will see that is not true. Quit spouting off tired old phrases that you hear from your atheist buddies.
Debate: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?
Side: yes

No you are assuming what is going on in the universe. You aren't explaining what is going on just projecting your presuppositions. We have theories which explain the formation of the universe, the formation of solar systems, stars and planets, of life and evolution. We are working on theories to explain the origin of the universe. This is our knowledge, and it is great.You assume their are civilizations to be destroyed. This is not observable. We exist. We are proof that life does not require special planets or stars. Asteroids have hit the surface of our planet numerous times throughout history, causing massive extinctions. Given the size of the universe this must happen everywhere, an uncountable number of times.No it certainly is not required. Perhaps the only monitoring of the Sun for coronal mass ejections would be vital to our infrastructure. Most of the catastrophes witnessed in space have no effect on us. Nearby supernovas, quasars, passing massive celestial bodies, and asteroid impacts can all wipe us off the planet. These are not rare in the universe and happen every few million to tens of millions of years. We have about 500 million years left on this planet before the sun changes so that we are not in a very habitable zone. In five billion years Earth won't exist at all. Space is a vast place, and seeding life would take us hundreds of millions of years.Ha! That being said by the one who believes there are other civilizations being destroyed. Look at the universe anything to what we have witnessed and you will see that is not true. Quit spouting off tired old phrases that you hear from your atheist buddies.My inferences are reasonable because we have knowledge which allows us to make them. You are just guessing "god" because you have no answers. Don't elevate your suggestions of magic to the same level as knowledge.