The Instigator
didymus
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Dilara
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

A human life more important than anything.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Dilara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,072 times Debate No: 53970
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

didymus

Con

I will argue against the value of individual's life. I will instead support humanity as a whole, and the individual working for an improved mankind that can be determined by it's overall happiness, knowledge accumulated and awareness of the world around it. (Which will be other cultures, and the environment.)

Round 1: Choose whether or not you accept this debate, and explain the basis of your ideas.
Round 2: We will both further our statements and rebuttals until round 5 where we provide final rebuttals and explain our conclusions.
Dilara

Pro

All people have souls, all people have some good (with an exception) and all people matter. We're all equal.our lives all are equally as special, baby's and little peoples lives are more valuable and a doctor or someone who's life benifits other is more important. If there is a school of fish what good is the school if the fish are empty?
Debate Round No. 1
didymus

Con

Thank you for accepting this challenge, I'm not that experienced a debater (This is still within my first full day at the site) and I seen your comment earlier, [1] and was curious why you felt that way. I took the topic of this debate directly from the comment you left, although I inadvertently left out the word 'is.' Feel kind of silly about this, but you seem to understand the topic.

I agree with the idea that most people have some level of good, as vague as it is, Good is very vague, and I assume we are using the standard term of 'good' as moral, not good as in satisfactory like 'good dog'. My personal definition of good is 'of use,' or to the betterment of society as I have described.

You state that we are all equal, and equally special, then you go on to say that "baby's and little peoples lives are more valuable and a doctor or someone who's life benefits others are more important". Unless, you would like to provide your personal definitions for 'Special, valuable, and important' I am afraid your statement seems contradictory.

It might make sense if that "with an exception" was somewhere else, such as after "all people are equally special", meaning that you are attempting to state peoples lives of benefit to others and children's lives are of higher importance. If you state that Children and those who help others are good, you are saying the future generation and people who improve society are worth more.
Valuing children and those who help society seem something we would both argue for, as my idea simplified is
Society>Individual, whereas your claim states life>Anything
You are saying life is important on it's own, I am claiming it's a means to an end which should be the core of our respective arguments.

Finally, "If there is a school of fish what good is the school if the fish are empty?" seems very confusing. I think you are saying "if there's a group of fish, what good do they do if they don't have a soul?" My answer would have to be feeding the things that may eat them (such as humans, larger animals or decomposers and scavengers after they die.) This seems to be an odd point for your case, so I will assume that this isn't what you meant.

"If there is a group of life, what good is the group if life is without value?" Seems like the best equivalent to this strange metaphor that I can think of. It's a good question to ask, "Why is mankind of value if it's individuals are not?"
I simply look forward to evolution, not of species in this case, but of seeing ideas evolve. I put more value in knowledge than I do of the average human life, (Including my own). This may lead to the question, why is this of value? The natural laws of nature are based off evolution and the common idea of evolution is the advancement of a species. So it is natural for humans to try to improve themselves, and it only through this attempt to work for improvement that makes mankind a better place. Individuals lives will work for the advancement of a species, for knowledge, and for the happiness of others'. I am not suggesting that people become mindless drones in these pursuits, human emotion is naturally occurring as we work for this goal. People naturally want to gain knowledge, others want happiness, whether it be greedy and for themselves, or to give that to others. The 'Greed' aspect goes against my idea of humans should help society, but with my idea of 'good' it maintains it's aspect of evil.

Some final things I'll need you to clarify:
What is a 'soul?' (I need you to explain your ideas about what they are, like morality it's answers can be different.)
What is your definition of good? To hold human life at different values we need different moral opinions, so to explain this to me may help me understand your position better.
What is the exception to some people having some good, if that's really what you meant?

1. http://www.debate.org...
Dilara

Pro

Thanks for debating with me. Yes good means moral. Most people have at least a little bit of moral accept hitler and Ted bundy and so on. I think all people accept really bad ones deserve a chance at life (why I'm pro life) and a second or third chance if they mess up unless they did something really bad like kill someone. But if i had to choose people who are more important like if there were a bunch of zombies or a sickness and we could only give a life saving vaccine to some people I would choose young people embryo,fetus and baby-early 20s and doctors, experts ego can help all of us. You know what I mean. I wouldn't choose an old person unless they were a doctor or something because they're gonna die soon anyways I'd rather save that medicine for someone who hasn't had a chance. All people have souls and unless those souls are bad or evil they all matter. If we only caired about society but not individuals we wouldn't really be human.
Debate Round No. 2
didymus

Con

didymus forfeited this round.
Dilara

Pro

Thanks for debating with me. As a whole we matter but as individuals also. That's all.
Debate Round No. 3
didymus

Con

didymus forfeited this round.
Dilara

Pro

Thanks for debating with me buddy. A human life is the most valuable thing.
Debate Round No. 4
didymus

Con

didymus forfeited this round.
Dilara

Pro

Dilara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jasse 3 years ago
Jasse
A human life is not more important than humanity.
Posted by William.Burnham 3 years ago
William.Burnham
Con had this in the bag, shame he dropped, if Pro finishes then points to her.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
didymusDilaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was making the better arguments, but his failure to complete show for the last rounds grants the debate to Pro. Pro please work on your spelling accept is not the same as except.