azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Evolutionists protect endangered species

"'Blind luck' is how we were created by natural selection."We were not created by natural selection. We evolved by genetic mutation and survived due to having the best fit with our natural environment.--------------------------------------------------------------------- "You think you know everything don't you? You think you can control everything don't you?"You think you can win a debate with pointless rhetorical questions, don't you? You seem to be missing the point. I think we control too much, to the detriment of the natural order of things. It is one thing, for example, to find cures for illnesses and secure sources of adequate nutrition. It's quite another thing to destroy natural environments to the extent that we now threaten a catastrophe on the scale of a large asteroid striking Earth and wiping out much of life. I am hoping that of all the things we can control, we can stop this human-caused disaster by stopping our destruction of natural habitats.------------------------------------------------------------ "Why don't you use your "educated guesses" to try and save the farmers around the world that are suffering from drought?"Oh, are you saying that they are endangered species? I thought you wanted those to die out. In fact, one of the environmental impacts of drought include loss in species biodiversity -- in other words species move away or die out. The dying out part is what you like, right?As I have said, I advocate preserving the natural habitat of plant and animal life. Unfortunately, drought is a natural phenomena.----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Because with all your "educated guessing ability" you just don't know how nature is going to behave!"Well, I'm fairly confident that every day the sun will rise and set. I can't say with a high degree of confidence that the day will be sunny or not. So, you see, to some degree, we do know how nature is going to behave. And I prefer being guided by that knowledge, limited as it is just now, than to rest my fate on blind luck.------------------------------------------------------------------ "if it makes you happy to save those poor animals that are going to perish anyway, go ahead..."If not for our destruction of their habitat, most species would not perish any faster overall than the base rate established in the fossil records. So no, they were not going to "perish anyways". Since you seem not to understand this very simple and basic concept, after all this discussion, I'm going to think that you will not soon evolve into an informed debtor on this topic. I think we are done here.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

We evolved by genetic mutation and survived due to having the best fit with our natural environmentNone of this requires us to do anything consciously as a whole species, which part of that is not "blind luck"? You're just grabbing at straws now...Control and destructionDon't try to equate our natural behaviour to controlling of nature. We do what we can for ourselves by taking from nature. That's different to trying to save extinct species and reversing certain global phenomenon. Here's the thing: if we manage to destroy natural habitats on earth that does not help us with survival it will limit our survival, it will impact on our population. This will bring equilibrium back to nature. Nature finds a way, slowly...Farmers and droughtI'm highlighting the fact that you can't control nature. It's much bigger than us or anything we can do, and it seems you agree.humans unnaturally cause the accelerated rate of extinctionAll you people who want to save the animals think that everything humans do (like overconsumption, destruction of habitats, burning of fossil fuels, etc...) are unnatural. You forget that we're a natural part of this ecosystem. We got here through the same process as everything else around us. Everything we're capable of doing is natural. Stop thinking that it's not natural. Why is it that if a bird builds a nest from straws and sticks, we think it's natural, but if we build a house from earth and timber it's not natural??? Everything from this planet is natural. A computer is natural.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

If you personally want to go and save endangered speices go if you would like but do not let the gov with are tax dollars do it.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

So you're saying that institutions that accept responsobility for a country cannot be responsable for the fauna/flora of said country?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Heck YES! We should pour our efforts into saving humans instead of those tasty little critters.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

The strongest species survive its natural. And it might prevent the evolution of another species to take its place. SO if we saved every endangered species lots of other species might not evolve.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

You do releazie that evolvoution takes millions of years right? By then some species may have gone extinct because of us. That and your theory is not correct.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

if we save the endangered, then what about the prey or predator of this animal?if we start saving, then we will most likely continue, then, this endangered animal's population will soon increase. if there are to much of this animal, then killing this animal will be involved. Soon this animal will be endangered again and the cycle continues which is obviously no use.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

But if this animal is a keystone species, then we have to do what it takes to build up this animals population. Because the balance of the ecosytem depends on it.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Humans are a species just like any other. The only rule in nature is that the fittest survive, we are the fittest, so why do we have to hold ourselves back? What's the difference from a lion killing a gazelle or us killing a gazelle?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL THEM ALL!!!!! HAAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHDMDKDJJDKDLSNSJSBS
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Evolutionary theory does not suppose that species that survive are "better" in a general sense - it supposes it is better in a given environment (that environment includes the complex symbiosis between animals) If the environment changes (and it does all the time) then one species that might have been "the best" in the old environment might loose its position. If a nuclear war happened then cockroaches would theoretically be "better" apt to deal with the situation than us, fur example.So in other words: the theory of evolution does not place inherent value onto species, its value is relative ( another concept the religious find hard to understand)But to answer the question: "evolutionists" should in at least in some cases try to save endangered species, if only for the value of being then able to study its genetic code, and such. Some endangered species might have very special attributes that might be used for medicinal purposes, for example
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Natural selection purely cares about the ability of a species to survive in a given environment. Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving and so may eventually find themselves on the endangered list. Rats are pretty awesome survivers, pandas on the other hand are pathetic animals that will probably not exist in the wild any more... Perhaps we can keep them for research purposes, but I doubt that reason alone will justify a budget.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

In terms of trying to save all endangered species, I think we agree - such a mission Is so humongous that it is practically impossible.And I do think that there is to much emphasis on saving the visually appealing animals - that is I think somewhat of the endengered species right groups do what they do for sentimental reasons and not scientific (not that there is anything wrong with being a little bit sentimental).But we definetly gain from trying to save some endangered speices, therefore I say no to the question.P.s. When you say  "Those who are weaker than others will not be as successful in surviving"  I do think "weaker" is a loaded term there. It could happen that a species that is in all respects "stronger" than some other species would go extinct, and not the weaker one - just because of environmental luck/bad luck. On average though, the better apt species is more likely to survive.In other words, though some species goes extinct, doesnt mean that it was necisarilly a worse survivor in a general sense than other species that might survive for a million more years.I think that people confuse the scientific theory of evolution and the politcial theory of social Darwinism.Social Darwinism is a simplified version of evolution used by politicians (usually facists) to justify their actions. It is built on the idea that evolution is an agency that has a predetermined linear plan for all species (and in that respect quite similar to gods of many religions) and Social Darwinist look at their survival as a proof that they are "better" In a scarily general sense, and therfore are justified in their actions.Their logic is profoundly circular and stupid (like religious logic as well)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Just some food for thought.The whole point of this debate is centered around the ideology of genetic superiority. However, who is to say that these endangered species have a mechanism to prevent extinction? These endangered organisms have a method for survival that they have gained: humanity. If we look at this from a more objective viewpoint, humankind is saving some endangered species from extinction. Now, why do we do this? The species have perked our interest in some category. These species have, one could say, evolved to be different, which causes humans to not wish their disappearance. Humans are saving the species for a reason, but this reason may seem hazy. These species have managed to manipulate us indirectly to engage in a symbiotic relation with them: humans get what they want (beauty, a product, or knowledge) and the species gains the ability to survive. In summation, these species are not genetically inferior. In fact, they have succeeded in manipulating the human species into keeping them alive.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, the Tasmanian tiger looks like an awesome creature, but it's extinct. Lots of other animals that are awesome to look at or study, but because they're not so easily adaptable, they've become extinct. Humans can try to save them, but if our population keeps expanding, natural habitats of certain animals will continue to disappear. Survival of the fittest is a heartless game, but nature or rather evolution doesn't cater for the heart... The human species could well be on our way to becoming a super mutant species with super intelligence and physical abilities that far exceed our current levels, if the theory of natural selection is correct. Why do we want to mess with nature?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I guess I was a little unclear with what I meant when I said that. It is not that an awseome looking creature should survive; it is that our wish to save these creatures is a tool for their survival. It is not about catering for the heart; it is about logic. If humans want something, such as an endangered animal being saved, they will attempt to do it. We are not interfering with nature by saving it; we are submitting to nature by trying to better our own species through saving the endangered one.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I agree. There are probably better ways to put this but it's the best reason to save any endangered species yet. You can probably expand on the reasons why saving them would better our own species.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I agree. Saving some animals can be seen as a form of symbiosis, for it can enrich our society at the same time.I have heard of such numbers as; 90 species go extinct every day (mostly bugs) - If those numbers are anywhere near correct then it is obvious that we cant really save a huge percentage. Therfore I think in choosing which species should survive there is always gonna be guesswork on what sort of policy is best concerning these animals. And we have to admit that maybe we have been overly emphasizing saving species that we can Identify with (find cute), Tigers, Pandas, whales and dolphins (even though they are nowhere near extinct), seals, and etc.We also have to understand that "saving" a species often means changing it. And we have to be critical of what constitutes "saving an animal". For example when Keiko (the killer whale that played the whale (obviously) in Free Willy) was "saved" that is moved to Iceland to be rehabiltated into the wild, the plans humans made on how he would be rejoned with his family didnt go very well. He was usually more interested in mingling with humans, which could be quite scary for fishermen on small boats in Iceland :) - and in the end Keiko was found dead on a Norweigan beach.When an animal cant deal with its environment and is close to going extint; then to save it, the savior has to build a new enironment for the animal - and that is a very complex undertaking - and much to complex that the people who do it can plan little and live in their airy fairy disney world of how great it would be if a whale for example would meet its family and live happily ever after. - Not that there aren´t real life story´s that are quite disney-escue, sometimes these things go very well - but too often an unforseen complication ruins the day for sentimental animal lovers, and at least sometimes the reason for things going wrong is more to do with the animal lovers having their head up their ass, and not with the survival skills of the endangered animal.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Evolutionists should subscribe to the theory that species that survive are genetically better than those that don't.The term "evolution" refers to the fact that allele frequencies change within and across populations of biota as well as the explanatory model (theory) that accounts for how or why this occurs. It isn't, however, a social movement; there isn't an "evolutionism", and therefore no "evolutionists". There is also no such thing as "genetically better". That doesn't make any sense. If so, shouldn't they just let endangered species die out? I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?(:|) That biota evolve has little relevance to whether humans should or should not act to help sustain living populations.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Evolution is a theory of how things become what they are from the "beginning".The other theory is Creation.People believing in Evolution are called Evolutionists. When I say "genetically better" I mean "genetically better adapted to survival".Why should we try to save those species that are obviously not meant to survive in the current environment?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Evolution is a theory of how things become what they are from the "beginning".After the beginning, and not how things become what they are, it is specifically a theory that explains the observed biodiversity on the planet earth and the mechanisms that lead to it.The other theory is Creation.Creation doesn't have a theory. To this day it is an untested hypothesis (at best).People believing in Evolution are called Evolutionists. One does not believe in Evolution. You either accept it or reject it. "Evolutionist" is only a misnomer by ignorant people.When I say "genetically better" I mean "genetically better adapted to survival".I get what you mean. It's just nonsensical.Why should we try to save those species that are obviously not meant to survive in the current environment?"Meant to"and "not meant to" survive are absurd notions. Populations either survive or go extinct. And we do what we must because we can, and have an obligation to our own survival to ensure that ecological equilibrium is maintained as best as possible. For example, a species of frog disappears, dipterids and cucilidae, and all sorts of other nasty insects become disproportionately represented, causing problems for us that decrease our ability to survive. So, we have a practical obligation. Moreover, westerners have tended to outweigh our ecological budgets through urbanization programs that have created artificial punctuations and pressures. We also overhunt and exert our influence in ways unnatural to ecological balance. So, we also have a moral obligation because it is often our fault that these species are endangered, not nature's fault. So we are obliged to do something about it.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Evolution and Creation are both opinions of a beginning. Neither of which can be proven. Don't try to give one more validity over the other."accept it or reject it" believe it or don't believe it - you're actually just nit-picking now. People you call ignorant write the Wikipedia and dictionaries that these terms can be found in. Things maybe "misnomers" in the beginning, but wide usage actually earn them a place in books and acceptance in society."Meant to or not meant to survive" - I'm just gonna go ahead and pick on the pandas again, they're just pathetic animals that are so defenseless and slow moving and ridiculously reluctant when it comes to reproduction that basically leads them to their current fate in the hands of humans. They will probably not exist in the wild any more in the near future. Now, I look at that and say that they're not meant to last in this environment. Which part of that is absurd? Some other animals survive no matter what you throw at them. Which part of that is absurd? I'm actually quite interested in what you say about how our survival is linked to ecological equilibrium. I mean, the dodos and the Tasmanian tigers are gone but that really hasn't affected us much. There are some 3 species of plant or animal that become extinct every hour, we're not affected. You assert that what we do may be unnatural and that we're at fault for putting some species on the endangered list, but you forget that we are a natural species of this natural world and what we do is basically what we are naturally capable of doing! If a stronger species kill off a weaker species, it's always the stronger species fault: there's no moral obligation in nature! Nature doesn't care.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Science doesn't deal with proofsYour peers are gonna frown at this statement... I mean if a witch doctor said that you're crazy because you've been cursed by an evil spirit, but you don't believe him and you went and got a "scientific" diagnosis and got an MRI scan of your brain and saw that there was in fact a tumour. Wouldn't this science be trying to prove your craziness is as a result of the tumour???I can argue with you on every other ridiculous points that you have made but I'm actually gonna urge you to get back on track with this debate topic instead of trying to debate the meaning of every word that you appear to be an expert on. It makes for more interesting reading than reading your "straw man" arguments (as someone has called it). Oh and Evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't make or break productivity in the scientific community. The human thirst for knowledge is what drives productivity in the scientific community.You finally touched on the topic of the debate in your last paragraph and I'm actually quite a lot more interested in that. Please expand on how we can return current extinction levels to the "normal" level (if we can actually work out the normal level first it would actually help), and why that would benefit us? I mean I'm sure keeping things as unchanged as possible will probably also keep us as unchanged as possible. But here's something for you to think about:What if a drastic change in the current environment of the Earth causes humans to then develop a new ability that we previously don't possess? What if the carbon level in the atmosphere got so high that the human respiratory system began to learn how to process carbon dioxide? What if as a result of that our eyes began to see radio waves? I'm seriously just wildly hypothesizing here but you know the point, I hope.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Your peers are gonna frown at this statementNot at all. Science utilizes induction. Inherent in its process is the inability to prove things. Science deals with levels of certainty, culminating in theoretical frameworks at the pinnacle of the process. Here is a link to a simple and interesting article about how science works: http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/science.shtml.  Another: http://tinyurl.com/yeos493Oh and Evolution theory is a theory, it doesn't make or break productivity in the scientific communitySo what? I never claimed evolutionary theory "makes or breaks" productivity in the scientific community. I simply claimed that it 1) increases our knowledge of the world we live in and 2) is productive: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html I can argue with you on every other ridiculous points that you have made but I'm actually gonna urge you to get back on track with this debate topic instead of trying to debate the meaning of every word that you appear to be an expert on.Please highlight the ridiculous point(s) I've made so that you can thoroughly embarrass me with your clearly superior understanding of a field I've worked and been educated in.You finally touched on the topic of the debate in your last paragraph and I'm actually quite a lot more interested in that. Please expand on how we can return current extinction levels to the "normal" level (if we can actually work out the normal level first it would actually help), and why that would benefit us?I don't see how this question is relevant to anything I've written. I haven't proposed that there is such a thing as a normal level, nor have I proposed that they should return to this arbitrary level you've introduced to the debate and are attributing to me.What if a drastic change in the current environment of the Earth causes humans to then develop a new ability that we previously don't possess?Shifts in the characteristics of an environment do not cause "abilities" to arise in humans.