The Instigator
bluepawn24
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
1dustpelt
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Are humans responsible for extinction of animal species from the planet?

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 3 votes the winner is...
1dustpelt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,524 times Debate No: 23514
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

bluepawn24

Pro

Hi my name is Pam and ill be on the affirmative side on the debate are humans responsible for extinction of animal species from the planet. First id like to give a definition of the word EXTINCTION: "Extinction is the end of a group of organisms (taxon), normally a species".
http://www.arkoflife.net...
There are many reasons why the humans are to blame for this problem but the main ones are "Habitat loss,ILLEGAL killing-hunting- or poaching, pollution.
1dustpelt

Con

Acceptance
I accept.

The Resolution
As someone pointed out in the comments, Animalia is a kingdom, not a species. So given that, the resolution is, "Are humans responsible for extinction of the kingdom animalia from the planet?"

Definitions
Animalia- The taxonomic kingdom comprising all animals.
Human- The species of homosapien.

Debate Structure
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Present case
Round 3. Rebuttals

Rules
No semantics
No trolling
No harassment
No inappropriate content
Forfeits are equivalent to losses
Violation of the rules result in the loss of the debate

Burden of Proof
The proposition must prove that humans are responsible for the extinction of the kingdom animalia.

Voters
Vote according to the site. Violation of rules require an all seven vote against the rule violator.

Sources
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

Confirmation
Given the following information, it is the proposition's turn for Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
bluepawn24

Pro

First of all my opponent had no right to make rules for this debate "after" he accepted the debate. You already accepted and you cant make your own conditions when we already started. Also you twisted up my question when i said "animals" you know i meant specific species of animals. You said that we were supposed to present our arguments in round 2 but you didn't show or explain any ideas or arguments you have. Also you tried to change the resolution. Overall i think you've lost this debate automatically. Now id like to present my evidence more fully for my reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contention 1: Habitat Loss

Habitat Loss is an important pawn in the reasons why animals are to blame for animal extinctions. Humans are driving animals and plants to extinction faster than new species can evolve, one of the world's experts on Biodiversity has warned. Also Conservation experts have already said that the world is in the grip of the "sixth great extinction" of species, driven by the destruction of natural habitats, hunting, the spread of alien predators and disease, and climate change. However until recently it has been hoped that the rate at which new species were evolving could keep pace with the loss of diversity of life but it hasnt. Human beings have made many changes to planet earth without regard for the other forms of life living on the Earth. We have destroyed habitats that were the only home for certain species. Additionally, we have hunted and harvested other species to the point where they no longer had enough members for genetically diverse reproduction!. Humans have spread over the globe, the numbers of extinct and endangered species have grown. When humans move into areas where other species live, the humans often destroy animal habitats. Some species are adaptable and co-exist with humans, while some simply move on. But, many species are dependent on something in their environment to survive, such as a particular food source. Furthermore, humans hunt other animals for food, for sport and to protect domestic livestock. Living in an area with another species can give humans the opportunity to hunt animals with which they may now be sharing an environment. Such close contact between humans and other animal species has resulted in the decimation of many species, which are now extinct or endangered.
===========================================================================
Contention 2: Illegal killing/hunting/poaching

Illegal killing/hunting/poaching is seen around the world every single day. A person who hunts illegally is called a poacher. Most poachers are not poor people who kill for a living. They are actually people who do illegal trading of animal parts to earn a lot on money.
Black bears and rhinos are-for medicines and cosmetics. Sharks (fins) and bears (paws) –for soups. Chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys Leopards, buffalo and elephants-for bush meat. African elephants-for ivory ornaments and meet. Paddlefish eggs are-for being sold as caviar. Tigers are–for their skins, claw, teeth, bones and other body parts. Poachers sell the hide, organ and eggs of animals to people who are involved in the production of clothes, jewelry, medicines and food products. Non stop poaching has resulted in endangering many species of animals such as tiger, gorilla, African elephant, black rhinoceros, leopard, polar bear, musk ox and macaw. If not stopped now, poaching will finally lead to the extinction of these animals. The tiger is majestic creature in the animal kingdom. India at one time had a large population of tigers. Unfortunately, the situation has changed now. Tiger in India are endangered as they are poached cruelly for their body parts. According to a government report, only 1411 tigers are left in India today. As you might see this actions are made by humans which goes with my point.
====================================================================================
Contention 3:
Pollution

Many animals are dying because of pollution. All types of environmental pollution have negative impact on animal's health, and the worst types of pollution are air, water and noise pollution. Even small levels of environmental pollution create discomfort for many animals while on the other hand more excessive pollution leads to diseases and deaths of animals. Many people ignore the fact that our planet is now polluted more than ever before, and that many animals are dying because of it. They fail to see the importance of these animals, and underestimate the importance of biodiversity in general. There are three types of pollutions that majorly affect animals they are air,water and ,noise. Air pollution is particularly dangerous to animals when in form of the acid rain. Acid rains kills fish in lakes and streams by increasing the acidity of water. Water pollution has extremely negative impact on many animals. Water polluted with different chemicals can cause decline of population in some species (such as frog), while on the other hand water polluted with nutrients can lead to huge growth of toxic algae which when eaten by other animals may cause serious diseases and death to these animals. Noise pollution is also becoming huge problem for many animals, especially animals that live in our oceans and seas. Because of the increased ship traffic and offshore oil drilling noise pollution has started affecting very large number of marine animals. Whales and dolphins are among animals most affected by noise pollution. This is because they use their sense of hearing for many purposes such as hunting for prey, navigation, migration and finding the members of the same species and with so many artificial sounds in our oceans they are having tough time to identify them all. So you can see pollution caused by humans hand can kill and spread diseases in the animals, intoxic them and torture them in a way.
====================================================================================
Now ill wait for my opponents reasons....


1dustpelt

Con

Plagerism and Copyright Infringement
It seems my opponent has directly copied and pasted her contention 3 from this site: http://pollutionarticles.blogspot.com...

This is violating Copyright Infringment and Plagerism. This is illegal and this should cost at least a conduct point, if not the debate. Voters, please take this into mind. (1)

Questions and Clarifications

"First of all my opponent had no right to make rules for this debate "after" he accepted the debate. You already accepted and you cant make your own conditions when we already started."
Actually, since you made no rules, I get to make rules in Round 1.

"Also you twisted up my question when i said "animals" you know i meant specific species of animals."
Actually, you did not say "animals" you said "animal species". If you do not make the resolution clear, the other person may interpret it. If you would read the comments, people have interpreted it differently, and looking at the first comment, it makes the most sense, so I will interpret it that way.

"You said that we were supposed to present our arguments in round 2 but you didn't show or explain any ideas or arguments you have."
Yes, because that was in ROUND 1! It clearly says, "Round 1: Acceptance".

Contention 1: Humans help the enironment.
Humans actually put the food chain into balance. The transfer of energy in a food chain goes like this:



One organism missing would cause the entire food chain to go off balance.

Contention 2: Humans are animals
If they wipe out the Kingdom Animalia they would have to kill themselves.

Sources
1. http://www.plagiarismchecker.com...
2. https://www.sheppardsoftware.com...


Debate Round No. 2
bluepawn24

Pro

Id like to say that i dint know my friend literally copied my last contention and i will accept the loss point for conduct like my opponent said already. Now my opponent still hasnt answerd any of my arguments therefore i can rightly claim to have won the arguments. When my opponent said that he had the right to make the rules is false because if he where right , an opponent could make up a list of rules tht made any debate impossible. So if no rules are showned then the ordinary debate conventions apply. Overall an argument in a debate should not have "dopey semantic arguments", an exaple of this is taking the word "animals" to "animal kingdom" instaed of animal specias makes no sense in the context of the debate.
====================================================================================
Now id like to refute my opponents two contentions in this debate.

"Contention 1: Humans help the enironment.
Humans actually put the food chain into balance. The transfer of energy in a food chain goes like this:"



My opponent said that humans help the environment and that they put "the food chain into balance". But what about pollution does the human beign help the environment does it make the animals more healthy or more sick like kill them. Now about the humans putting the foood chain in balance where in this triangle do you see an human?. He also said that " One organizm would cause the entire food chain to go off balance", but going back to the reason of this debate of how humans are the cause of extinction of animals he truly just said that if one of the organizm dissapered or went EXTINCT it would affect the food chain. So tecnicly my opponent just agrreind with me!.

" Contention 2: Humans are animals
If they wipe out the Kingdom Animalia they would have to kill themselves."

First of all, my opponet said that "humans are animals", i dont think myself as an animal and neither does other people. We were specifically talking about animals and how there going extict by the act of the humans not that humans were now considered animals too. Again this debate was about how its the humans fault for the extinction of millions of animals around the world he just said "If they wipe out the Kingdom Animalia they would have to kill themselves." . If i understood right "they" are humans , "kingdom Animalia " are the animals, "wipe out" kill them illegaly or of hunger because of lost habitat for animal. Overall my opponet just said again that im right.


Id like to thank my opponet for debating me, also like to thank the voters for reading this debate and await the results. Thank you for your time.:)

1dustpelt

Con

Questions and Clarifications
"When my opponent said that he had the right to make the rules is false because if he where right , an opponent could make up a list of rules tht made any debate impossible."
No, that is trolling.

"Overall an argument in a debate should not have "dopey semantic arguments", an exaple of this is taking the word "animals" to "animal kingdom" instaed of animal specias makes no sense in the context of the debate."
It is not semantics! Anyone can easily make a mistake making "Animal species" instead of "Animal kingdom" Again, look in the comments, there has been confusion and different interpretations.

"Now my opponent still hasnt answerd any of my arguments therefore i can rightly claim to have won the arguments."
No, because rebuttals are in Round 3. If I had refuted your arguments in Round 2 I would have violated the rules.

Rebuttals

Contention 1: Habit loss
Yes, I agree that humans have caused habit loss. But you still have not listed a single species of animal that has gone extinct, thus failing to meet the BOP.

Contention 2: Illegal killing/hunting/poaching
Yes, again I agree this is caused by humans. You have also showed that many species have gone endangered. But still, you have not listed a single species that has gone extict, thust not meeting BOP, becuase the resolution is they have gone extinct, not endangered or hurt.

Contention 2: Pollution
This argument was plagarism, I do not have to refute.

"First of all, my opponet said that "humans are animals", i dont think myself as an animal and neither does other people."
The species homo sapien are animals. Humans are animals, defeating your entire rebuttal there.

Conclusion
By BOTH interpretations of this debate, my opponent has failed to meet her BOP. By her interpretation, she has failed because she did not list a single species that has gone extinct. By my interpretation, well, she did not show that the Animal Kingdom is extinct.

Given that my opponent has failed to meet the BOP, vote CON.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Con is noob sniping by making a foolish semantic argument. The resolution is perfectly clear. It says "animal species" and everyone knows what that meant.

Pro loses a conduct point for failing to attribute a source. Con loses a conduct point for for attempting to impose rules after acceptance. Con can close to failing to debate the resolution. con's arguments were irrelevant to the resolution; humans in fact have positive effects on the environment, but that doesn't dey they also wipe out species.

Pro made an assertion that humans cause species extinction. Con did't dispute the assertion, but rather only made irrelevant points. Pro gave good reasons for the assertions. That amounts to a very weak case, but it is prima facie, which is all that is required to win when there are no counter arguments directed at the case.

Playing semantics and trying to impose rules after acceptance is a poor practice. If there is any confusion, or if you want more rules, argue that in the comments before accepting.
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
i know it kept slipping through my mind!! lol
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
lol You could have won this debate by listing a single species that have died out due to humans.
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
remember guys take a point away in conduct for me .
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
friend gave me ideas for sound dindt know she copied it ill accept the negative points or no points at all for this . ill take the responsibility...
Posted by Blob 5 years ago
Blob
Damaging.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Unless the user has a connection with this blog Contention 3 was copied and pasted:
http://pollutionarticles.blogspot.com...
Posted by Blob 5 years ago
Blob
@ Apollo.11: Your interpretation is simply wrong. No biologist would interpret "animal species" as "Animalia".

@ 16kadams: Pro must show that at least two animals have become extinct due to humans, since he said "animal species" and not "an animal species".
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
All pro needs to do is show one animal died due to humans, quite easy.

Mammoths
Do do birds
Some types of pigeons
Etc.

But humans have saved many animals too, so it evens out. Ironic: hunters played a large role in saving these species.
It's not ironic though as they want to preserve the animal to continue the hunts, so they try to preserve them.

I say humans have a 50-50 effect.
Posted by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
huh
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
bluepawn241dustpeltTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
bluepawn241dustpeltTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bad grammar, no sources and conceded conduct, and Con had better arguments. All 7 to Con.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
bluepawn241dustpeltTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and hence loses conduct, Pro had bad spelling and grammar, Con made arguments which were more objective than Pro's, and Con used more sources as well as using them in the manner that they are supposed to [by means of citation in the manner of displaying where ones arguments come from].