azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

SUPER STUPID you are going to tell me that all the Illegal Wetbacks that enter the US are Dreamers ? SUPER STUPID have you any facts the Illegal Wetbacks are just Dreamer Children ? SUPER STUPID you are devoid of any facts because you can't produce them. Your Typical Leftist insanity shows you want open borders and all that cross the border are Dreamer Wetback Children !You are so STUPID in the title of your post you admit they are illegal !
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

Hello poochy boy:Wow... Sounds like you just got up.. Have some coffee.. I'm here for you..Now, get this bone..excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Where are your facts SUPER STUPID do you have any on the Illegal Wetback Dreamers ?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

STUPID you have no facts do you ? How surprising is that LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

ISIS' children were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: America is their home

It depends on individual circumstances and should be dealt with that way. If their whole family is still together and the country they came from is not in ruin then they all should share a fate as a family. But if their nation is in anarchy and war, or they have next to no family left and are almost orphans, then give them a break.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Hello G:There are few families like that... The Dreamers younger brothers and sisters are probably ALL citizens.. excon
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

So we should bring in a mass influx of Russians into the United States because they are dreamers that want to destroy the United States. Makes sense. How about ISIS? Do their babies count? Do their dreams count? How about future gang members or future terrorists? Do their dreams count Con? With your ideology we can't carry a gun to protect ourselves, defend our borders to protect ourselves, have free speech to protect ourselves. Your clan's ideology demands we lay down arms, let in anyone, shut up, and just hope for the damn best. Screw our children. They aren't top priority on Con's list. It looks like they are dead last point of fact.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

What happens when the welfare system goes broke and social security is finally depleted Con? Then what? We'll have a nice dystopian hell hole to hand our children, and the Mexicans that wanted to come here legally, will have nowhere left to go because the Mexicans who wanted to buck the system destroyed it... and sadly... we let them. It's not these Mexicans fault. It's the Democratic Party and the mindless globalists' fault. They think laws are for... well nothing. Laws hurt peoples' feelings. Laws are racist. Laws are bad. Screw it. The debt will pay for itself. Who cares if we can't afford it. Maybe a magic unicorn will save us, feed us all, and give us all a million dollars out of the kindness of its magic heart.
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"There are few families like that... The Dreamers younger brothers and sisters are probably ALL citizens.."SUPER STUPID you again show you have no facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

"Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to"Did you miss that the Dreamers were illegal ? The author of the post has alluded to it !
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

So Boston Boy should it be that people that are in America illegally not be deported ? Are you saying that people that break the law should get a break ? Why are there laws or does America need laws ?
Debate: Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Side: Git 'em OUTTA here

Could it be that laws only apply to Americans and not the Criminals that enter the country?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Based on empirical evidence, yes, dear Earth--and everything in it--would be significantly better.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Earth must be jealous of Mars .
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

I don't think you understand how unintelligible that statement is. Actually, I'm quite afraid as to why you think that statement was/is indubitably ingenious. Albeit I understand the point, but not the intelligent effort put in to compose such an absurdity.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Based on empirical evidence, yes, dear Earth--and everything in it--would be significantly better."Better" is a value term. You speak as though the Earth actually Values things. This is incorrect. It is simply your value judgment that Earth would be better without people. Since you are a person, your value judgment projected onto a planet is more problematic than my mockery of this position.I'm quite afraid as to why you think that statement was/is indubitably ingeniousI am quite concerned that you seem to believe you can read my mind based on a snarky comment. Mind reading is the only reason you could think that I think that my comment was ingenious.I understand the point, but not the intelligent effort put in to compose such an absurdity. It was a simple absurdity that took little effort.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

When I speak of earth, I speak off all life on it excluding humans. Since humans are the cause for unnecessary death and atmospheric changes (which is worse for all life including humans) then take out the cause you would have better results. Animals have feelings, they are apart of my descriptor of the earth, humans cause them to feel bad, so humans not being here would alleviate the feelings. (To clarify: this statement is just an example, 'feel bad' is to mean as a result of human activities such as deforestation leaves animals starving, homeless, etc.). Mind reading is the only reason you could think that I think that my comment was ingenious.So I guess words like 'implication' are not apart of your vocabulary...It was a simple absurdity that took little effort.Obviously. Since the fallibility behind it was extremely high I assume the cause was unintelligible.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

When I speak of earth, I speak off all life on it excluding humansIt's unnatural and irrational for a species to exclude itself when making a value judgment.In trying to determine who on earth would be better off (since earth can't care), how do you choose? If it's based on unnecessary death, would the invention of anti-bacterial chemical be the worst? Doesn't it kill the most?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Animals, would live better. .
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Why choose animals and exclude humans? We certainly wouldn't live better. There are countless microscopic creatures in the human microbiome, they wouldn't live better. Other animals destroy their environment as well as humans. When they go too far, their population plummets and they start again. It's cyclical. Have you considered that humans fit this model as well? It may be a perfectly natural cycle that our population booms, we destroy everything (pushing evolution even harder), and then we destroy ourselves and it all starts over. Why is it better to keep a species?Does it matter that we have more diversity now than ever before? Maybe earth is better off with us killing out species to make room for hardier evolutionary diversity.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Were you serious... You disregard the fact that environmental destruction of itself is natural which is why it replenishes. 80%+ of deforestation is not natural. An elephant knocking down a tree to eat is natural; Beavers chomping down trees for homes is not harmful. This, in a sense, natural 'deforestation' is completely fine because the trees are relatively small. Beavers do not relocate themselves because of their loss in trees. This is because of their ecosystem's stabilization. Humans attempt at an emulation of this has proved unsuccessful. An ecosystem imbalance--excluding humans--would be a natural imbalance, which is why it fixes itself. A human impediment causes this self-fixation to be illusory.As for the evolution part; I'm not just talking about human atmospheric based extinctions. Hunting, poisoning, etc., is also a cause. "Why keep a species" Humans killing off these animals hurts themselves also. So your diversity notion fails. Humans killing off themselves does help with evolutionary factors- this isn't competition (as evolution requires).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

When there is little predation, some species become overpopulated and damage their environment. after the tipping point their numbers plummet. This can happen with deer and rabbits. My suggestion is that it is the same with humans but it takes a very long time. My notion of diversity is based on the fact that there are more species now than before, regardless of human action. The point about our harm to ourselves is moot since the debate regards our absence vs non-absence. My suggestion is simply that nature which has created us, is equipped to deal with us. That human action isn't unnatural simply by virtue of the fact that it's human. The only thing required to push evolution is a stressor which must be overcome through mutation to maintain survival. Humans may be that very stressor.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Human overpopulation is the main reason for the earths destruction. 80% of forestry will eventually turn into 100%. All of the wildlife thriving in the forest will die out of course. Wildlife that is essential to ecosystem balancing. A balancing necessitated for survival. Moreover, the "20%" will be replaced with factories and such that produces more carbon (or nuclear waste), which results in even more rapid atmospherical changes. To suggest this will be 'recycled' is completely absurd. There is a fine distinction between human overpopulation and animal overpopulation- the main reason being what humans do as a result vs. what animals do.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

If humans destroyed 100% of the earths forests and all forest wildlife thus destroying any human quality of life, then yes I suppose everyone would be better off without humans. But that is an enormous if. Your argument is devolving into something similar to your "we have paved the planet" hysteria. I'm out. Good luck evil genius.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Seeing that my pessimistic view is likely to happen based of empirical evidence; and your optimistic view offers very little substation in comparison to mine; then I must advise you to change you optimistic view of this "If" and divert it towards your notions of earths bright future. Done.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Ok thanks. I'll use all that impirical evidence you provided. Glad to be on the right path now.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

No problem. However, you'll probably only understand such evidence through knowledge of meteorology, ecology, biology, zoology, astronomy (because of the suns radiation), and botany. I fear you haven't really specialized or sub-specialized in either of these fields--I presume this based of your responses but do correct me if I am wrong (and reading about a few things on a website, TV, science magazines, etc., does not make your claims admissible in a topic requiring an interdisciplinary approach or scope).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

No, my understanding is very surface. But that's okay since you provided quotes from all those well respected specialist spelling out the planets impending doom. Oh wait.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Clearly 'surface'--in your case--means a fraction of information.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Provided "quotes".....? .
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Nah, more like knowing pity I should think. Humans have been landing rovers on Mars for years now... it is the beginning of the end for that planet, and Earth knows it. I bet Earth is really jealous of Pluto though.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

I support your argument in part, earth would certainly be better of without SOME humans. Do you want to volunteer?
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

so perhaps there are no current lifeforms other than humans capable of perceiving the world and the benefits it would have if we were not present. however there is also the possibility that there is a species with the potential to appreciate the planet just as we have, maybe in the distant future, and as it stands we have possibly ruined the lives of those hypothetical beings, making life possibly quite hard for them. Also if we were to look at human principles you could generally say we consider life, or at least our own, precious. the question is asking us to judge whether the earth would be more or less desirable without us, and what other criteria do we have other than our own? our actions thus far has caused the deterioration of the environment, and if continued will cause an environment that scarcely supports life, so we have removed the possibility of some of life due to harsh conditions and made life difficult for other animals. There is also damage we have done not concerning the atmosphere such as over fishing, destroying the oceanic ecosystem, and our cruelty by our standards is ironically unmatched by any other species than ourselves. judging by our criteria of our general idea of morality, we are an abhorrent species, causing much death and (suffering) to much life. therefore the world would undoubtedly be better off without us.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

It all depends, like nature lovers could stay but I would have to go with yes because all we do is destroy wild life and kill animals for fun. We pollute the world for crying out loud. So yea the world would be better without humans
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Whether the world would be better off or not without us is irrelevant. We are here to stay for a very long time. We primates have always been known to be highly intelligent. I guess that's why we are as advanced as we are now. We as a species have grown as time passed (for better and for worse).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

This doesn't mean we cannot debate about it. Following the arguments, it also sheds some light on how humans really are. In doing so can change someone's destructive behavior therefore making a better earth. Basically, it is relevant; only an irrational person would think otherwise (I.e. to say your health doesn't matter is irrational).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Man has done untold and unimaginable damage to the ecosystem and this cannot be reversed. The course that we have set in place has unbalanced millions of years of history. From drilling shale gale reserves to destroying the ozone layer, we have ruptured the very basics of existence, not only for us, but even for other animals.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Previous and present human behavior has made the planet increasingly uninhabitable for our species, as well as a number of others. At the same time, I think the planet at large is rather indifferent to our existence. Humans are hardly the first widespread natural disaster, and the extinctions we have driven are not a new phenomenon in the history of the planet either.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Wherein the natural phenomenon that earth has experienced in the past, the keyword is 'natural'. The earth's essentials that are the sustenance thereof, are being utterly destroyed by pollutants that were never introduced in ways from post-human destruction and presence. Previously, the earth's atmosphere (upon the era of water and plants) was significantly better which facilitates its own rehabilitation. That same atmosphere is significantly changing by human activity causing pollution. Upon which is ozone layer depletion in which radioactive waves consequently results in overexposure to all life--the most important being plants. Plants can adapt but not at the speed of this depletion. When essential plants all die off as a result of the overexposure, then oxygen levels decrease, and air pollutant levels increase--due to numerous plants having the ability of absorbing air pollutants such as carbon. Things of this nature results in the over-dominance of air substances, in which leads to a atmospherically imbalanced planet--and as you see, planets such as mars appears to not have any life-forms or habitable areas for life forms-- wherein life itself would eventually become non-existent and non-replenishing.All of this, thanks to homo-sapiens.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

You are advancing a false dichotomy; humans are a part of nature, and consequentially all that we produce is also of nature. In a somewhat ironically human-centric approach, you also appear to be underestimating nature as a whole. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that humans would be able to so utterly alter the environment before causing our own extinction that it would become "Mars-like" and incapable of supporting any life whatsoever. Notably, your argument regarding radioactive overexposure are seriously undermined by research that shows that there are species within both flora and fauna which can adapt and may even benefit from high levels of radiation. Even if a few bacteria alone survive, which research demonstrates they can, that is more than adequate to continue a pattern of life and evolution on the planet since life on this planet began with single celled organisms. (1, 2, 3)Even if all life ended on Earth forever... I would suggest that the planet would remain entirely indifferent since it is not capable of caring one way or another.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

Humans are a part of nature, and consequentially all that we produce is also of nature. Your point? My point is that the production itself is not natural. And the introduction of such products was not intended.Even if a few bacteria alone survive, which research demonstrates they can, that is more than adequate to continue a pattern of life and evolution on the planet since life on this planet began with single celled organismsThis presupposes that the current theory of evolution would be repetitive, even though it clearly states how things turned out this way supposedly by 'chance'. As for contemporary plants and organisms; I clearly implicated 'speed' in regards to factors contributing to the depletion of plant life. I also stated that plant can evolve as the radiation becomes exacerbated (but of course this botanic rapid evolution--in comparison with the rapidly increasing radiation--has not been seen. Also, on a microbiological scale, there is an organismic food-chain. Within this food chain organisms are dependent upon other organisms (which, following the destruction of all other life, these organisms depend on said other life).
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: No

Your point? My point is that the production itself is not natural. And the introduction of such products was not intended.My point was that yours is entirely semantic. If humans are of nature than our actions are also an act of nature, rendering the production itself natural. And of course the introduction of that production was not "intended"; nothing is.This presupposes [...] said other life).You have misrepresented my comments by responding to a single sentence taken out of context. The entirety of my analysis was that there is no evidence (certainly none proffered by yourself) that humans would so fundamentally alter the environment before causing our extinction as to render all other life infeasible. This unfounded claim becomes even more tenuous in light of the diverse range of flora and fauna (including but certainly not limited to bacteria) which not only survive but thrive at higher radiation levels than humans can withstand. And, of course, ultimately a non-sentient Earth would be entirely indifferent even were your unfounded and unlikely claim to come to fruition.
Debate: Earth would be better off without humans.
Side: Yes

My point was that yours is entirely semantic. If humans are of nature than our actions are also an act of nature, rendering the production itself naturalI 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. 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.