The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Are all lives important?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 98629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I don't think so. I think we've had 'all life is precious' showed down our throats for so long that we think we can reproduce without any consequence. We can't. Our resources are not unlimited. Of course we need to reproduce but as I am writing this there are more people brought into this world than people dying which does not result in a happy ending.
Not every life is important.


I accept. Firstly, I'd like to summarize my opponent's argument as he has just outlined.

My opponent's argument essentially rests on the idea that, since resources are limited and time is precious, we ought to embrace his position that not all lives matter. My opponent embraces the Malthusian model, in that he believes population growth outpaces the cultivation of various resources such that humanity's decline is inevitable.

I'd like to clarify one thing in particular: I do not disagree with any of the proof my opponent has put forth in R1. In fact, in some ways, I also subscribe to the Malthusian model. However, my opponent fails to meet his burden of proof. Just because, as humans, we ought to embrace the view that not all lives matter DOES NOT mean that some people are inherently worth less than others, in the present day. His proof, which I actually agree with, does not connect to his conclusion.


Rather, it is evident that all humans share a few basic characteristics, all of which make them inherently "important."

First of all, what are these characteristics which all humans share?

1) The scientific tendency

All humans share, at a basic level, a tendency to think scientifically. From an early age, humans categorize, adhering to basic scientific principles at the subcounscious level. This tendency is necessary for us to survive, as it is with all animals. Combined with the capacity for human intellect, humans are driven to ask "why?", to discern causes and to predict outcomes independently. [1]

2) The legislative tendency

Another characteristic of humans is our innate need for rules to govern society and ensure order and common good. Human societies cary greatly in their complexity, but they all have one thing in common: rules. Rules codify our behavior, a process known to be found distinctly in human beings. [2]

3) Procreation

Biologically, procreation is a necessity to continue the human race. Whether we view it as such or not, we all take part in the "grand symphony of nature," in that successful genetic evolution has laid the groundwork for our existence and that of our descendants. A huge majority of the human race is able to procreate at some point in life, and regardless of wealth or status, procreation is a common characteristic that carries significant weight. [3]


All of these tendencies matter, and as they apply to all humans, they contribute to the very societies we live in today. Our progress and innovations rest on our innately scientific perspective. The origins of our governments rest on our tendency toward structure and standards. Our very lives rest on our ability to reproduce. Regardless of wealth, race, status or mental disposition, these traits are shared by all humans, and are, as I have explained, extremely important. Thus, one can see why every human is important on some basic level.

Yes, some people may serve less of an active role in society than others. But these abilities lend importance to every life. These crucial human characteristics cannot be ignored.

Debate Round No. 1


I see a really good response with a lot of fair arguments. I also realise there are some things I have to explain.

I do believe that all humans are equal in the sense that no one is less worth than the other. What I meant when I started this debate was that I think that all lives are not important if we breed to the point where we can no longer take care of ourselves.
We have to reproduce, of course we do, but as it looks now our future is unstable if we keep believing we can just keep bringing people to this world because "all lives are important".
People are still starving while animals are being tortured and beaten for their meat because there are so many mouths to feed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy vegan. I eat meat with pleasure.
What I believe is that our way of life is so unstable that we have to find excuses for it like veganism and bicycles because it's too difficult to blame ourselves because no matter how much we mess up as humans we never EVER acknowledge that maybe we are the problem.
The solution? Stablize the world population. Decrease it and make sure that the amount of people entering is equal to the amount of people leaving.


My opponent makes several disconnected claims in Round 2 which still fail to fulfill his burden of proof. I will get to his concessions later in this round.

Firstly, my opponent argues that not all lives are important if the Malthusian population model, which I explained last round, becomes a reality. Yes, I agree that the fulfillment of this prophecy of sorts severely delegitimizes the value of human lives purely in terms of quantity. However, your entire argument is in terms of the future, not the present. At the present, as I have explained, all lives carry a basic level of importance. This still stands unrefuted, and proves the opposite of what you are (or what you're supposed to be) claiming.

Con's Concessions

My opponent concedes that no human is worth less than any other.

As this debate is in terms of the present e.g. "*Are* all lives important?", my opponent therefore narrows the list of possible answers to the question posed at the beginning of the debate to just options: either all humans are worth nothing, or all humans are important in some sense. As I have already demonstrated, all humans possess inherent characteristics that denote biological or societal importance. Thus, all humans are important on some level. All lives matter in some way or another.


I contend that this debate is essentially already over. My opponent posed a questions about the inherent value of humans in the present day. I answered this question, and the evidence I have provided stands unrefuted in its entirety. My opponent's futile attempts to answer the question in terms of future possibilities does not prove anything about the inherent worth of human beings; rather, he is simply falling back on a call to action to stabilize the world population. This does nothing, again, to prove that any single life is unimportant.

I await my opponent's response, if there is anything left to be said.
Debate Round No. 2


Have you read anything I've written?

This debate has never been about biology or whether Usain Bolt is more worth than Stephen Hawking. The debate has been about whether or not how far we can take the idea that we can keep reproducing without reversing the process for the safety of our future. What I wonder is whether all lives will remain important when we get to the point we are heading to now, where we cannot even stop people from starving and dying, yet factories are working day and day out to make sure a percentage of us feel warm and full. And instead of working harder and harder, what I am doing is putting a new way on the table that says that maybe, just maybe, we need to look into ourselves and see what we as humans can do. More coal or less people? That's my argument on why not all lives are important because sooner or later we are going to be at capactiy.


I rest my case.

Let's go over my opponent's argument:

1) This debate is not about the worth of human lives.
2) This debate centers on the future of procreation and how that might affect our safety.
3) My opponent *wonders* what choice, if any, humanity has to modify the course we have set out for ourselves.

R1: This debate is not about the future.

The biggest issue with this debate thus far has been the utter lack of consideration for the issue at hand: whether all lives are important. The resolution (or question) itself is "Are all lives important?" The resolution justifies a debate about the present worth of human beings, not humanity's success down the road.

R2: My opponent does not have a question.

My opponent is Pro, but what is he in favor of? He has not outlined a position nor has he stated a claim. So, in reality, this is where my rebuttal must end. This hasn't been a debate. This has been me discrediting the resolution and my opponent asking irrelevant questions about humanity's future, which, as per the resolution, is not what this debate is about.

To put it simply, all my opponent has put forth is completely irrelevant to whether all lives are important or not.


That was short.

Now, I will summarize my arguments, which still stand unrefuted in their entirety.

I will start with what my opponent has already conceded, which is that all lives are equal in their importance. Hence, either all of humanity is of no importance, or all lives matter at a basic level. I take the latter view, and I have proven my claim by presenting characteristics which all humans share, that make every human life significant.

Firstly, the scientific tendency, shared in all animals, serves as the basis for our logic and problem-solving capabilities. Thus, every human shares a basic capacity to better the world by contributing to scientific development. Secondly, every human has a legislative tendency, a prioritization of rules to ensure order and security. This tendency allows for the formation of governments and organized societies, a hugely important step in the development of humanity as a whole. Lastly, the ability to procreate plays a crucial role in preserving our longevity as a species, being of paramount biological importance.

These three abilities and many more allow humans to contribute to the highly complex societies in which we live, and prove the assertion that all lives are significant in some way or another.


I thank my opponent for this debate. I ask the voters to consider the problems with my opponent's performance in this debate: namely, that Pro has failed to put forth a claim about the importance of human beings, and has utterly ignored the resolution. On the contrary, I have laid out a defensible claim which proves that every human life matters.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
Who gets to determine who lives and who dies?
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago

the lives of bigots are worthless!
Perverts are condemned!

water shitters!!!

There is absolutely guaranteed proof that not all lives matter.
the illegitimate offspring of criminals, crooks, bigots and doushbags are very close to auto failures by default.
We can prove that entire countries are candidates for unimportant people: Americans idolize womanizers and fund/sponsor illegal cartels with zero regard for their enslaved food providers and disregarded utility providers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hiu 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: R1 Pro detailed his argument, highlighting some important points such as the shared ideals (e.g. scientific tendency, legislative tendency, procreation). In subsequent rounds Pro has responded to con contradicting his arguments using the disconnect and the failure of con to fulfill con's burden of proof (ass seen in R2). In R3 Pro subsequently details con's argument and again highlight the failure to fulfill his argument in the debate.