azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, well,you say Science doesn't deal with proofs, yet people use science to prove things all the time. I gave you a simple medical example to back my point up and you completely ignored it. Nice. You've somehow lost the ability to actually use normal verbal language... All your science babble can usually be summed up simply using easy to understand language. I say "the cat ate its meal",you say "the felis catus ingested its sustenance"yeah... ok, you deserve a medal?!You say Creationism is an unproductive hypothesis and that Our understanding of evolution on the other hand has propelled and advanced medicine, created one of the fastest growing industries in Bioinformatics, has influenced engineering design techniquesI say that's complete bull. It's the inherent human thirst for knowledge and need to always improve that drives our unrelenting search for explanations and advances our sciences techniques. Scientists around the world include people who believe in God.Who cares what some random person on Wikipedia wrote? Wikipedia isn't authoritativeRight, and you're obviously the authority... and that ofcourse extends to your opinion of Wikipedia.An outcome resulting from the ability of an organism to engineer doesn't mean that the outcome itself is natural. So a bird builds a nest out of sticks is natural, and humans build a house out of sticks is not natural because we use engineering? In the grand scheme of things it's all the same.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I gave you a simple medical example to back my point up and you completely ignored it. Nice. I've ignored a number of your statements. There is a distinction between the practice of medicine and the study of medicine, and a difference between practicing medicine and doing science. Medical practitioners, first and foremost, are not scientists. It's basically why they get an M.D and not a PhD. The research involved in progressing medicine, its techniques and treatments for doctors to use is science. Doctors using the findings from research is not.I say that's complete bull. It's the inherent human thirst for knowledge and need to always improve that drives our unrelenting search for explanations and advances our sciences techniques. Scientists around the world include people who believe in God.You're absolutely correct. But this is irrelevant to what I wrote and the quote you're using. Does this at all address my accusation that creationism is unproductive? No. Does creationism increase our knowledge? No. You can literally replace god or whatever mumbo-jumbo religious bullcrap you want and still have the exact same evidence, the exact same amount of knowledge at the end of it all. If all we had was creationism, we still wouldn't know nada about the world we live in.So a bird builds a nest out of sticks is natural, and humans build a house out of sticks is not natural because we use engineering? In the grand scheme of things it's all the same.Please review the examples I gave of natural abilities engineering artificial things: circles, numbers, synthesized chemicals etc. etc. The next time you see any of those wandering around in nature, let me know.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

That science proves or notI'm tired of this line of debate. You're just not going to give up with your science talk. Just admit that science proves/disproves and can be used to prove/disprove theories/conjectures/opinions all the freakin' time. I don't know why you find this so difficult... I truly don't know.that creationism is unproductiveCreationism is a theory. It cannot be productive or unproductive. No theory has the ability to be productive or otherwise. People, on the other hand, can be productive. People of all belief systems increase our knowledge of the sciences and techniques.that everything is "natural" in the grand scheme of thingsWhy can't you see this even after i've told you that it relates to the grand scheme of things? In this grand scheme of things, I consider the computer in your house natural because it is of this world. But just to humor you, plastic is nothing but fossil fuel. The full moon is pretty round, don't you think? And any chemical compound in nature (like salt = 2NACl) is synthesized right?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I don't know why you find this so difficult... I truly don't know.The reason why I can't admit what you want me to admit is because of how science works. Evidence only supports hypotheses and theories through induction (science uses induction and not deduction). The conclusions we can come to through research do not necessarily follow from our observations and tests.We simply can't use the scientific method (induction) to prove things. Here is why. We can have ten million points of data in support of the theory of gravity, but none of that will prove it because our theory of gravity is falsifiable--all scientific theories have to be falsifiable. That is, there will always exist the potential (and actuality) that our theoretical frameworks do not appropriately account for our observations and future points of data can and often will refute what we currently know. That something can be proven through science while at the same time being refutable is paradoxical at best. And falsifiability is inherent in all scientific theories. So no scientific theories can be proven or prove other things.However, the scientific method can certainly disprove things quite easily.Creationism is a theory.For something to be considered a theory, it has to have first existed as a hypothesis that has been confirmed through a battery of tests. Creationism has not undergone this process, so it cannot count as a theory, no matter how much anyone wants it to be one.And if by "theory" all you mean is the un-technical "opinion", then fine. Creationism is an opinion, a conjecture, guesswork. But let's not pretend that when you say "creationism is a theory", you mean it in the sense that general and special relativity are theories. Because it's not.It cannot be productive or unproductive.By productive, I mean that it is constructive and provides useful results. The application of our understanding of evolutionary principles underpins other industrial efforts: in medicine, agriculture and other fields. Why can't you see this even after i've told you that it relates to the grand scheme of things?I don't pretend to know the grand scheme of things. I leave that to religious cults, soothsayers and flock fleecers.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

scientific method can certainly disprove things quite easily...ok check this out: Disproving something is the same as proving the negative. So consider this "Birds can fly because the air is denser than their bodies", but using science you know that the air is not denser than the birds, so you can now say "Birds can fly NOT because the air is denser than their bodies".I trust this should settle your reluctance to admit something quite simple.I don't pretend to know the grand scheme of thingsNoone knows that grand scheme of things. I'm simply relating it to the meaning of "natural" or "nature", that everything humans and any other living things on Earth are capable of are essentially a result of nature's work. This is ofcourse beyond your dictionary definitions of "nature" or "natural".
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I trust this should settle your reluctance to admit something quite simple.Quad erat demonstrandum...I'm simply relating it to the meaning of "natural" or "nature", that everything humans and any other living things on Earth are capable of are essentially a result of nature's workI've never suggested otherwise. I have, however, suggested that the result of a natural ability is not necessarily itself natural. And you do realize that you're the only one who's used a dictionary throughout our debate, correct?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Why you gotta go all fancy on me with Latin for...the result of a natural ability is not necessarily itself naturalWell, haven't I extended the meaning of "natural" to cover the results of everything we can do? Houses, buildings, mercury thermostats, spaceships, all of it... all natural in the big picture.To argue that the results of those natural abilities may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection"? That's hardly something Evolutionists (can we please agree to use this term to refer to people who accept the theory of Evolution?) would allow to go undebated :)
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Well, haven't I extended the meaning of "natural" to cover the results of everything we can do?It doesn't mean that the extension is appropriate or universally applicable. Houses, buildings, mercury thermostats, spaceships, all of it... all natural in the big picture.Much like the grand scheme of things, I don't know the big picture. Artifice is one of the greatest achievements of human intelligence. Human engineering is definitely an inherited ability via evolution, but it doesn't mean everything we engineer is of nature.To argue that the results of those natural abilities may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection"Natural selection isn't an ability. So the analogy doesn't hold. But the whole isn't always the same as its component parts. To argue such is merely to think incorrectly about some things. (See: Composition fallacy). That a sterling silver spoon is made of a metal found in nature does not necessarily make the spoon itself natural.(can we please agree to use this term to refer to people who accept the theory of Evolution?)No.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Natural selection isn't an ability. So the analogy doesn't holdI never said Natural Selection is an ability. It's a process observed and coined by Charles Darwin. So I will re-state:To argue that the results of those natural abilities (products of our natural ability to engineering) may not be natural is admitting that Natural Selection has resulted in something (engineering ability leading to engineered products) that may not be natural and so from this point on, the course of this natural process (Natural Selection) will be altered by the phenomenon "Unnatural Selection".So, is being human natural or not? (Being human is being capable of all these unnatural things). We've been trying to control nature since day 1. The farming of certain animals that serve human needs well, cross-breeding, global engineering projects, etc... But I doubt that it has made an impact on nature over all. If we have in fact been successful in changing the course of nature, we should call it Human Selection (to follow the theme of Natural Selection)!!!
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I never said Natural Selection is an ability.But you were analogizing it. You're still analogizing it. And it only makes sense as an analogy if you're arguing that both are abilities. Hence my point: they are not both abilities and therefore aren't analogous. That is, me saying one thing about an ability is not like saying something about a process. All I'm saying is that humans have inherited from nature the capability to create and imagine unnatural things.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

But you were analogizing it. You're still analogizing itAnalogizing doesn't equal defining. I maintain that Natural Selection is not an ability, it's a process. It's a process that continuously "selects" the best fit attributes or abilities in populations. It's a process that occurs naturally in nature as observed by Darwin, which is free of interferance from human ethics and moral values.If this natural process has resulted in humans being able to change the course of natural selection with unnatural creations, then the process observed by Darwin is no longer applicable.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

To stay on topic:what you wrote and its relevance to the topic of saving endangered species: Ok, you said that we should care about the various ecological systems because they impact human survival. And your position in this debate is to continue saving endangered species. So you're saying we should try and slow down or return the rate of extinction to "normal", don't "mess" with nature. You didn't say it in those words, but that's what you mean, please try and keep up with me here. It might help if you're not wasting time trying to correct me on the definition of every word ;) abilities and the environment Can I ask what you make of the many different types of cats (large and small)? What about the different types of primates? What about dolphins in fresh water or sea water? What do you think of the different skin colours of different races of human? The humans that live in areas exposed to the sun more than other areas have skins that protect them better against sunlight, that's an accident? There are various other creatures that have adapted to different environments to ensure its species survive. If I stayed in school long enough I'd probably be able to give you a few more examples. So the same species can survive in environments that are very different. They've adapted genetically.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

You didn't say it in those words, but that's what you mean, please try and keep up with me hereMy tacit position would certainly be to slow down rates of population decline. But my position is not to return these populations to some state that you call "normal". "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." Don't pretend that the latter has anything to do with what I've written. Your seemingly arbitrary use of words is yours to own, not for me to defend for you.It might help if you're not wasting time trying to correct me on the definition of every word ;) It might help if you have a working understanding of the words you are using.... ;)My only point, and one I've explicitly made and requires no need for interpretation of meaning, is that we have a practical obligation to help (because it helps us in the long run), as well as a moral one (because it is our encroachment and over-consumption that often causes endangerment, not the endangered's inability to survive in their own environment). They've adapted genetically.You're obfuscating the issue. You argued that shifts in the environment can cause non-existent abilities to appear in populations. That is simply factually wrong and inaccurate. Let me quote you: 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?" The environment cannot cause abilities to appear. Mutations do that.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

My tacit position would certainly be to slow down rates of population declineSlow to what? To normal? To close to normal? I mean extinction is a natural process, so there is a normal level if we don't interfere, wouldn't you agree? So when you propose to slow down rates of extinction, what are you talking about? May be you're just not that good at making a point... you're probably better at correcting people on their usage of words. Stop trying to defend yourself, it looks a bit... pitiful.our encroachment and over-consumption that often causes endangerment, not the endangered's inability to survive in their own environmentSurvival in an environment means you have to find food and defend yourself, but also means you have to adapt to changes in that environment, changes that may be caused by other species.The environment cannot cause abilities to appear. Mutations do thatIt's the same thing whether you can process carbon dioxide in your lungs as a response to a higher level of it in the atmosphere or you just develop this ability by mutation regardless. If that's the environment you're going to thrive in, you're obviously going to survive better while others in your population perish.I'm actually sick of explaining the simplest things to you over and over. If you can't see past the simple words and read the meanings, then you're going to bore me. I mean if I called you a genius after you completely messed up the simplest task, do I mean that you're a very smart person or do I mean that you're an idiot?
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

If we're both discussing a scientific theory and you have it in your head that "theory" is synonymous with "opinion" (as you've pointed out earlier), then there's no hope for meaningful communication until that is resolved. You have to think more carefully about the subject that you are discussing, the implications of the words you choose to use and whether or not they are even applicable. Otherwise, the words themselves will have to be debated before we can debate the issue itself.Listen, you can be sick and bored until you rot in your own ignorance for all I care. But some of the things you have explained require correction. And some of the words you use, and how you use them need to be properly contextualized. You are working under layers of misconception and misunderstanding, and failing to recognize them: http://tinyurl.com/ykon69w (PDF)And the rhetoric you choose to utilize highlights that fact. Being ignorant of your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. And it's certainly not something to parade.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

So a theory is not a scientific opinion? There you go again with your stupid (perhaps I should use "ignorant") nit-picking habit, I wonder where that comes from...Thanks for your advice professor, but may be you can be more aware of your oblivious ignorance. Being stupid when you've been educated is a terrible waste of that potential.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

So a theory is not a scientific opinion?No, it's not.There you go again with your stupid (perhaps I should use "ignorant") nit-picking habit, I wonder where that comes from...It's called an attention to detail and it comes from a need to be accurate. Evolution isn't a theory about "how things become the way they are from the 'beginning'". Scientific theories aren't opinions. The changes in the environment do not and will never cause non-existent abilities to develop in organisms. These are statements that you have made. They are wrong. Things that are wrong require correction. And you need to recognize that.Thanks for your advice professor, but may be you can be more aware of your oblivious ignorance. Being stupid when you've been educated is a terrible waste of that potential.Well, I've already challenged you to cite all of those ridiculous things I've written and embarrass me with your superior knowledge. So far, all you've done is complain about my nitpicking and try to get into a pissing match with me. But the nitpicking will continue for as long as you choose to share your misinformation. I'm going to challenge you again. Put up or shut up.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

Ok, fine:A theory is a scientific opinionYou say: No, it's not.I say: yes, it is.The Webster-merriam online dictionary says:- Opinion = a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.- Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.You remind me of the reason I am strongly allergic towards pompous a-holes. May be now you'll correct me on the usage of the word "allergic". I think it conveys my meanings sufficiently. When your education and need for accuracy hi-jack your brains and get in the way of bigger things, it's time to regain control of your thoughts...Continue your bs if you like... i've got a lotta time.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

The Webster-merriam online dictionary saysAre you sure you got those uses from a Webster's dictionary online and not dictionary.com? It doesn't really matter. I'm going to borrow from Norman Swartz. "Dictionaries do not define words; we do. Dictionaries report our standard usages." They are lexicons of normative--and not technical--uses. "How many of us have seen letters to editors of newspapers in which correspondents will jawbone opponents by invoking the seeming sanctity and authoritativeness of 'the' dictionary. They will write such things as "the [sic] dictionary defines..." and so on. "It is absurd to think that dictionaries, in which definitions are limited to some tens or hundreds of words, could have very much useful to offer on the genuinely weighty concerns of society. Just as no one would think to solve problems in physics or chemistry or medicine by consulting a dictionary, one ought not to believe that one can solve problems in, e.g., philosophy, political science, psychology, etc., by consulting a dictionary."You remind me of the reason I am strongly allergic towards pompous a-holes.Riiiiight.May be now you'll correct me on the usage of the word "allergic".Nope. But I will suggest that you consider how words are used by scientists within the scientific discipline and not consider how average people use words in every day conversation. This should be fairly obvious when discussing an issue of science. It is the difference between a normative and a technical definition. If you think that humans have gone into space and landed rovers on other planets based on conjecture, guesswork, and on insufficient grounds to produce complete certainty, then I honestly can't do anything about that. Nothing I will write will move you from the rock of your certainty.But, if you go further down on the "Webster-Merriam" dictionary you cited, you'll note that there is a section called synonyms in which the first sentence goes as follows: Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: (i.e.) the theory of relativity. Attention to detail.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: Yes, stop saving them.

difference between a normative and a technical definitionSo that'ssss where the problem is... You keep getting stuck on the technicalities. I don't think this debate is very technical (even though you've managed to make it so). We're talking about whether to save endangered species, and right now it's kinda resting on whether or not that would have a significant impact on our species's own survival... You've gone very far off track.
Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

I answered the topic two days ago. I am thus free to discuss whatever else I want.