azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I understand your point, but the fact of the matter is that Human beings are far to superior (for a lack of a better term) then any other species. While they have claws and heightened senses, we have guns that can shoot from over a mile away. These animals are not dying because we need to kill them, they are dying because people find it fun. I am not some bleeding heart liberal, I simply think that if an animal dies, it should have a purpose. I don't think we should save them, per say, but I think we should at least regulate the hunting of the endangered species.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I don't think we quite got my point even though you said you do.What humans are capable of doing (overhunting, cruelty, destruction of habitats, etc...) are natural. We are a product of evolution, we were made this way! We got here because a long time ago, another dominant species went extinct (dinosaurs?) Who knows? If we were extinct due to something else beyond our control, maybe another species will become the new dominant ruler of the Earth millions of years from now... It's natural to want to continue to carry the human genetic codes into the future, but how much of our existence is due to our direct control??? We can kill lots of human lives in a war that lasts hundreds of years, but a tsunami or earthquake kills off the same number of people in a few minutes! If we put up a town and clear out some farmland then it's frowned upon by conservationists, but if a forest fire destroy an area the size of a small country they say it's nature returning the balance of plants and animals back to that area!!! We just don't know...
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The world is like honeysuckle. One tendril chokes the other to reach for the light, believing they grow from seperate stems. When the sun shines, young leaves fight for its warmth. The struggle makes the bush strong, each branch seeking out the light and climbing even higher. But when there is no sun, when the leaves begin to fall and the branches wither one by one, the stem must look to its roots for nourishment. If the stem withers and dies all the branches die with for the stem carries minerals and water to the branches and leaves, does it not? That happens when we destroy a species. The ecosystem goes down with it. All will be unbalance of one disappears and another had depended on it:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species

These species are not endangered because they are inferior. They are endangered because of human actions that destroy their environment.You may as well argue that cockroaches are superior to humans because they will survive and thrive after an atomic blast that kills the entire human race. Lets have that nuclear war let and the species that are inferior die out to make room for those that are obviously meant to survive!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Dude, I think you're a little bit dramatic, but I actually like that in this debate. Suppose we destroy ourselves with a global nuclear war. Here's something we don't know: What if a group of us develop the ability to adapt to this radioactive environment and have all kinds of new crazy abilities that the X-men have? So as a result, we don't destroy ourselves but we merely got rid of those who were obviously "weaker" (or haven't got the ability to adapt to the new environment). We just don't know for sure, do we?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Dead people don't adapt.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Awww... you're no fun!Just out of interest, why do we need to survive long into the future? What's in it for us thousands or millions of years from now? The dinosaurs died out and we came along as the dominant species. We die out and i'm certain evolution will have another species ready in line to take over millions of years from now.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Your questions have been asked before. They are, in fact, debated by philosophers to this day. We have no way of knowing exactly what is going to happen in the future, and therefore, all that we as human beings know is that we have the potential to survive. It is basic instinct! Just like a parent wants their child to live, so will a parent thousands of years from now, should we maintain an attitude that promotes our 'survival.'
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species

You are welcome to die anytime. As for myself, I see no need to explain to a suicidal person my wish that I, our planet and the plants and animals on it survive and thrive as much as is naturally possible.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I dunno, it's a bit selfish to want to stay in power for ever...I mean democratically speaking, other species should have a chance to gain power and rule the Earth once every few hundred million years, right? I mean even if they haven't yet evolved, they will!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Well, its a bit foolish to think we are powerful enough to survive without the natural order of things to sustain us.Our attempts to manage nature typically result in our mismanaging nature. Natural selection is not a democratic process. You would have us make it so. But then, you have a bunch of wrong ideas, so your appeal to have natural science be guided by a political process is just one more wrong idea among many.But, sure. Don't be selfish. Go ahead and die. We will feed your corpse to the vultures and see if that aids in their evolution or not.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Our attempts to manage nature typically result in our mismanaging natureWhich side are you arguing for? Trying to save endangered species is totally trying to manage nature, so if we're going to mismanage it, why do it then? Natural selection is not a democratic processAgree! It's a process that actually require us to do nothing! It just happens. So stop saving the endangered species and let nature happen. Let natural selection "choose" the best candidate for the future.Go ahead and die I hate to break it to you buddy, but death is inevitable ;) You don't get to stay alive for ever, so when you're gone, nothing you care about matters... sorry to ruin your day there.Go ahead and save the stupid pandas. They're not going to exist in the wild, so they'll end up in human created habitats, and one day a single virus will wipe them all out in one fell-swoop... I'll be laughing my ass off that day for sure, cos y'all reckon you can control nature by saving some cute looking species and then nature puts you back in your place!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species

"Which side are you arguing for?"I'm arguing against the human destruction of natural habitats. Our doing so has increased species extinctions to an alarming rate. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Trying to save endangered species is totally trying to manage nature"Trying to protect habitat from human destruction is trying to allow nature to manage itself.--------------------------------------------------------------------- "So stop saving the endangered species and let nature happen."Destroying natural habitats and thereby endangering species is not letting nature happen. Again, your argument is like saying that we should drop nuclear weapons all over the Earth and see which species will survive. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "y'all reckon you can control nature by saving some cute looking species "I reckon we can control ourselves. I reckon we can stop destroying natural habitat. I reckon that with their natural habitat intact, the pandas will take good enough care of themselves. I also reckon that you don't have a clue what I'm saying. You are a profoundly uninformed debater. I think we are done here now. Bye and good luck.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, look I think we're missing the big picture here. The question remains "should we" or "shouldn't we"?We haven't managed to kill ourselves off with a nuclear war yet, but if that day came and humans were all but gone, a few million years from now another species will dominate the earth. I actually don't care if that happens. Death comes to us all. But I know that self-preservation is such a powerful force that says we won't kill ourselves with a nuclear war.Humans clearing land for farms and towns is not anywhere near the destruction level of a nuclear war. That's just total exxageration for effect.I don't know about me being a profoundly uninformed debater, but it was nice to debate with you.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

We humans are speeding up the elimination because we destroy animals habitats young grasshopper we are not slowing anything down. We abuse what we are given.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I think you have made a good point! take the dolphins on cape Cod, a group saved them from the beach..... they may now breed and have baby's who stranded on the beach as well?, maybe they should have let them die to persevere the rest of the Dolphins.http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS/3120310
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

I agree. By letting bad genes get passed on you jeopardize the entire species.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Do you have to be so mean to an accident that was not their fault? All life in the universe is given chances to live and die. Just like the rising and the setting of the sun. Like the new moon and the full moon. They are given chances to bring and give life but we are speeding up many extinction cycles by building more cities and using more land for farming. Many people do not know the amazon forest is poor for farming. They have tried this many times but they never learned from their mistakes.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

These dolphins are not necessarily defective. However, our actions in their environment are damaging and destructive.We need to stop the testing and use of sonar by the Navy that:1. disorients sea mammals enough that they beach themselves2. damages the way they navigate --> beaching.3. Causes major pain (earache anyone) --> beaching to escape the noise.THE CANARY ISLANDS - A total of 21 whale strandings in 1985, 1988, and 1989 were linked to visible US Navy maneuvers. These were the only times that whales were reported to strand in the Canary Islands. (Nature, 1991) Award-winning French biologist Dr. Michael Andre, free from our government's influence, learned from necropsies while studying the decline in sperm whales in this area that two of the whales (who were involved in the increasing whale collisions with boats in the area) were deaf as suspected.THE ATLANTIC COAST - In 1987, dolphins exposed to 235 decibels of sonar stranded and were found to suffer from tissue and lung explosion. (This information was allegedly found by Dr. Joe Geraci and buried in reports on file.) Since this revelation, there has been a great deal of resistance to obtaining autopsies that check for these types of problems, also predicted by the Marine Mammal Commission in 1997 (possibly based on Dr. Geraci's findings) to be a consequence of LFAS. THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA NEAR GREECE - In 1996, twelve Cuvier's beaked whales documented to be exposed to NATO sonar at 150-160 decibels were found stranded. At the same time about 200 stranded dolphins were suspected of suffering from tissue explosion. (Nature, 1996) LFAS levels to be used by the U.S. are reported to be 180 decibels in areas near shore and could go considerably higher, once deployment is underway and this program is classified.THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS - In 1998, three whale calves and one dolphin calf were found dead or abandoned during and immediately following sonar testing, even though in 15 years of research this phenomenon had never been observed. One of these was a distressed whale calf who breached 230 times and pectoral slapped 658 times in front of Dr. Marsha Green's research team in a four-hour period before the sun set on his distress. In addition, a pod of dolphins was observed by naturalists familiar with normal dolphin behavior huddling unusually close to the shore near the surface and vocalizing excessively while the sound was on.CALIFORNIA- Since the open testing in California began in 1997, sonar exposed whales immediately began to strand in increased numbers. In addition, there was a report of uncharacteristically aggressive behavior which is known to be a symptom of LFAS exposure. More recently, The Malibu Times reported in January, 1999, that more than 150 gray whales were found dead due to starvation along their migratory route where testing took place in 1998. Starvation can be a result of deafness, but ears were not checked in these cetaceans, even though the cause of death has remained a mystery.http://www.earthportals.com/beachedwhales.html http://www.ilhawaii.net/~light/lfaindex.html
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Thats awesome! but the Navy was no ware in sight! an the Dolphins and whales have been stranding on Cape Cod long before we Had a Navy! so to blame humans is irrational! http://www.deafwhale.com/stranded_whale/ theories.htm
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

From your link:"The Seaquake Theory suggest that the original cause of pod strandings is barotraumatic injury in the head sinuses of the entire pod caused by sudden changes in hydrostatic pressure (seaquakes) generated during undersea earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or when meteorites impact the ocean surface. The same sudden changes in ambient pressures (seaquakes) are also produced by projector arrays in the nose cone of a nuclear submarine, airgun arrays used to explore for oil, and underwater explosions. Thus, in this sense, the Seaquake Theory incorporates both man-made and natural causes of strandings."So low frequency sonar is not ruled out entirely, just as the sole cause. The sea-quake theory includes other human activity such as "projector arrays in the nose cone of a nuclear submarine, airgun arrays used to explore for oil, and underwater explosions."So, according to your own source, it is not irrational to blame humans, it is just insufficient.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Alas, my post was on standings on Cape Cod and the navy does not conduct maneuvers in that area, to shallow! and it seems to happen every year, so I'm guessing a medical issue that has been passed down from generations.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I believe we still need to be concerned with the impact of sonar on sea life. "The low frequency active sonar (LFA sonar) used by the military to detect submarines is the loudest sound ever put into the seas. Yet the U.S. Navy is planning to deploy LFA sonar across 80 percent of the world ocean. At an amplitude of two hundred forty decibels, it is loud enough to kill whales and dolphins and already causing mass strandings and deaths in areas where U.S. and/or NATO forces are conducting exercises."This is not natural selection. This is murder.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

You guys are wayyyyyyy off topic here. We're discussing something a lot more consequential than sonar on sea life. But just to steer us back on track, war zones anywhere are not great habitats for animals. I mean if 2 elephants are fighting it out I reckon the hyenas will probably steer clear of the area. If there are tanks shooting each other and bombing runs in a certain area, animals aren't going to like it much. So what? It's human activities, which is natural, because we're part of Earth as much as anything else here and got here just the same way (through Evolution). A few species die out due to our activities, big deal! Extinction occurs continuously and throughout history there'd been several spikes in the rate of extinctions. If the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct, who knows if we'd be here today or something else in our place??? The point is you just don't know... so I guess some people will try and slow extinction rates down, I reckon it's time to party and party real hard :)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

"war zones anywhere are not great habitats for animals."Sonar will cover 80% of the ocean. If all of that is a "war zone", it is a war I have not heard about.------------------------"A few species die out due to our activities, big deal! Extinction occurs continuously and throughout history there'd been several spikes in the rate of extinctions."Yes, Extinction occurs continuously. However, "the background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone.""The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. There are about 5,000 known mammalian species alive at present. Given the average species lifespan for mammals, the background extinction rate for this group would be approximately one species lost every 200 years. Of course, this is an average rate -- the actual pattern of mammalian extinctions is likely to be somewhat uneven. Some centuries might see more than one mammalian extinction, and conversely, sometimes several centuries might pass without the loss of any mammal species. Yet the past 400 years have seen 89 mammalian extinctions, almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered.""Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway." [1]And what if we manage to survive?"For along with that species richness, the ecosystem is likely to loose much of its ability to provide many of the valuable services that we take for granted, from cleaning and recirculating air and water, to pollinating crops and providing a source for new pharmaceuticals. And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery will be unbearably slow in human terms -- 5 to 10 million years after the mass extinctions of the past. That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored." [2]Well, yes. This does sound like a war zone -- and the enemy is us.[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html [2] ibid.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Buddy, all these science babble and stats paint quite a grim picture, but at the end of the day, it's just a guess! History and prehistory is so vast and life is so astronomically variable that we simply don't know jack! Sure it's an "educated guess", but it's a guess. The amount of animals and plants destroyed by forest fire each year is vast. But that's ok because that's nature. If we clear forest for farming it's instantly branded "bad". Why?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Well, according to you, our choice seems to be between being guided by "educated guesses" or by blind luck. One is smart. One is stupid. You makes your choices and live -- or die -- by them.And no, life is not "astronomically variable". The vast universe seems to operate under a standard set of rules. Certainly, within those constraints, there is a wide amount of variation. Yet, somehow, life manages to follow those rules, even if we can't yet explain them all and even if you can't accept as accurate predictors our current understanding of them. "The amount of animals and plants destroyed by forest fire each year is vast"Well, those fires have contributed to the the background level of extinction known from the fossil record. It's not particularly vast and certainly, over such a long period of time, has proven to be a sustainable loss. Our clearing of the forests along with other activities is raising the number of extinct species at an alarming rate. If present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway.Why would an asteroid hitting the Earth and wiping out much of life " instantly branded 'bad'?" Not all of us yearn for oblivion as you seem to do. Not all of us are oblivious to the fact that we may be facing the extinction of the human race if we do not act to protect biodiversity.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

"Blind luck" is how we were created by natural selection. If something hadn't come along and taken care of the dinosaurs, we'd probably not be here. You think you know everything don't you? You think you can control everything don't you? Why don't you use your "educated guesses" to try and save the farmers around the world that are suffering from drought? With all the technologies available to them, they still can't make it rain. What a shame, cos if rain was available on demand, we'd have no famines any more. You know why insurance policies don't cover "acts of God"? Because with all your "educated guessing ability" you just don't know how nature is going to behave! So I'd enjoy my time on Earth if I was you, and if it makes you happy to save those poor animals that are going to perish anyway, go ahead, but don't do it because you think it's going to ensure the survival of the human species... the appearance of a new type of virus might just help you clear those illusions.