The Instigator
Randomdebates
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SimplyJoshmala
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are people superior to all other animals?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 265 times Debate No: 72666
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Randomdebates

Pro

People are superior to all other animals. First of all, our intellegence has allowed us to essentially dominate the world already. Second of all, regardless of what you vote, at a subconscious level, you support my argument. After all, we already treat it as if this is true. For example, do you like air conditioning? Well if you do, know that it contributes to global warming. So does transportation. Cars add much pollution to the atmosphere. Most people don't avoid cars simply because they add pollution to the atmosphere. Now, we are trying to help the enviroment, but we still are superior to other animals. Have other animals created cities, governments, and many other inventions? No. Are we superior physically or mentally? Mentally, which is unique. Brute force is fine, but mental superiority has allowed us to rise above and far beyond the rest of the animals on earth.
SimplyJoshmala

Con

People are in fact inferior to other animals. I acknowledge Randomdebate's claim that our intelligence has allowed us to dominate the world, but what does that mean? I know we consume the environment, as we rely on it for many luxuries and necessary resources. Millions of years compressing animal fossils created our oils, furs of animals we kill, and their tender meat. The plants that we reap for our consumption. We as humans rely on them to live, although this is not a symbiotic relationship for all. I also acknowledge that our subconcious supports Random's argument, but our concious should be able to comprehend actual arguments.

Animals do not have deviant desires. Unlike humans, animals murder not because of their emotions, but for survival. A divorced wife might murder her husband for divorcing with her, pure hate showing true brutality. Sure, after reproduction, a female praying mantis will eat her mate, but this is food for the growing youth in an unforgiving and choatic world.

Debate Round No. 1
Randomdebates

Pro

People are NOT inferior to other animals. We are superior. We rely on other animals, and plants. So do many other animals. As a matter of fact, our ability to have deviant desires also brings up "saviors". Think about one of Newton's laws. For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction. While my opponent's argument is valid, just because we rely on something does not mean we are inferior to other animals. Relying on others is a skill that we have manipulated and used to our advantage. For his second argument, this is not true, and the opposite is present in certain cases as well. Orca whales in SeaWorld have killed their trainers, for what reason? Perhaps they wish simply to kill the trainer. The opposite could be present as well. If two people were marooned on an island, and there was no food, would they kill each other for food? Perhaps, perhaps not. This means we can go above killing others for survival. We as humans can rise above that primal instinct.
SimplyJoshmala

Con

SimplyJoshmala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Randomdebates

Pro

Randomdebates forfeited this round.
SimplyJoshmala

Con

SimplyJoshmala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Please add definitions, to avoid being destroyed on semantics.
No votes have been placed for this debate.