Can mass murder be justified?
Debate Rounds (4)
Im excited to accpet this debate, and wish my opponent good luck!
1. Humans have been a HUGE factor to enviornmental unraveling. Wih a population in surplus of 6 billion, humans are wearing natural resources dry. Scientists fear that deforestation will accelerate the more people there are demanding services, which means making more housing, schools, offices, etc. Even at the current rate of deforestation, scientists are woefully predicting that a surplus of 20% of the Amazon rainforest, which supplies ONE THIRD of the world's oxygen, will be gone by 2050. This stressing of natural resources has it's negative effects, such as driving other species to extinction. The reason this happens is that humans have completely eliminated the threat of natural predators and winter famines that used to keep the human population under control. Without them, the only ones that could take place of the natural predators are those of society. Thus mass killing can be seen as lessening the strain on earth's resources posed by humans.
2. Mass killings can save lives. Though contradicting my first argument, this is merely the other viewpoint of how a mass killing can be seen as reasonable. For instance, Japan in WWII was not willing to surrender to the American forces, and if the war wasn't ended soon, MILLIONS more would die on both sides. Though it was a hard choice, by deciding to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President Truman sent the message to the Japanese and Americans alike that he would rather a quick pain, rather than a longer and more dragged out suffering. This decision killed 160,000 people with 2 bombs, but you have to admit that 160,000 is MUCH less than MILLIONS. If I were tasked to make a decision to quickly kill 100,000 people, or kill millions over an exaggerated period of time, I would most certainly choose option A.
Having made myself clear, I wish to hear Con's side.
First off! I thank my opponent for their well made argument! I will now commence my own.
Despite the talk of growing population, there is still an issue of morality, in his argument my opponents writes
"The reason this happens is that humans have completely eliminated the threat of natural predators and winter famines that used to keep the human population under control. Without them, the only ones that could take place of the natural predators are those of society."
Yet, in this sentence he clearly states that he would sacrifice people to protect the earth resources, yet more probable than not, my opponent is a well-to-do person and wants the resources to be safe, so he can use them. Yet he probably wastes much more of earth's resources than a poor person in an overpopulated country.
He also states by saying this that he wants people dead to reduce the strain, but would he sacrifice himself? No! And I'm positive that you wouldn't like to die for someone who wastes earths resources!
In his argument my opponent states that the reason that earth is overpopulating is because of the lack of predators and natural dangers. But that is backwards to the truth.
"Without them, the only ones that could take place of the natural predators are those of society. Thus mass killing can be seen as lessening the strain on earth's resources posed by humans."
This year, as reported by the world health organization (WHO) that heart disease alone has caused 7.4 million deaths in this year alone. Stroke caused 6.7 million deaths and COPD and Lower respiratory infections both caused 3.1 million deaths this year each!
These diseases are easily deadly predators, my opponent also stated that winter famines cause many deaths, however that wouldn't be a killing issue, unless your talking about an era far to long ago to care.
My opponent also seems the believe that the earth is something we must protect at all costs, however I disagree. I believe that as a species, each of our members must be taken first. However, my opponent said,
"scientists are woefully predicting that a surplus of 20% of the Amazon rain forest will be gone by 2050"
I love animals and all, but the human race is much more important than our home, we can switch those, but we can't bring back new members. For example, would you kill your parent to protect your house? Of course not! We need to improve security of the Amazon, not kill people to stop this crisis!
My opponent seems to be a bit misinformed about operation downfall, my opponent wrote,
"If I were tasked to make a decision to quickly kill 100,000 people, or kill millions over an exaggerated period of time, I would most certainly choose option A."
most widely accepted estimates for allied deaths were about 500,000 and the casualties in the Atomic bomb were over 400,000 people, the issue for dropping these bombs was not to save lives, but to save the lives of the allies. While a large number of people, that is hardly a reason to accept genocide as okay.
Finally, and most important, no one has the right to take another person life, and even if it may make living conditions for you better, doesn't mean you can kill. In all societies killing a fellow human is wrong, and the Amazon rain forest, and wartime situations are no reason to approve this.
I thank the opposition for their well-written argument! And wish him the very best of luck in his next argument!
Well said. I shall now satisfy the hunger for a rebuttal.
1. About morality
In this argument, Con makes a poorly informed opinion:
"He also states that he wants people dead to reduce the strain, but would he sacrifice himself? No!"
According to Con, he can somehow be santa clause and know everything I do and live by. I hate to break it to you, but you do not have said powers. How can you make such an opinion on a person you do not even know? It is an impossible concept to bring to reality. Con also states:
"Despite talk of a growing population, there is still the issue of morality."
The fact that Con has failed to take note of is that no one person shares the same morals. Yes, it is forbidden by the bible, but what does that mean to other religions? What does it mean to newborns? Every animal is programmed to fight any threats, members of it's own species included. Why are humans the only ones that condemn killing, in the gist that EVERY OTHER SPECIES kills in the name of survival?
In this argument, Con states the following facts:
"This year, as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) that heart disease alone has caused 7.4 million deaths in this year alone. Stroke caused 6.7 million deaths and COPD and Lower respiratory infections both caused 3.1 million deaths this year each!"
While these seem to be very large numbers, Con has failed to consider 2 key facts:
A.The human population is in surplus of 6 BILLION (not to be confused with million)
B. According to Ecology.com, 55.3 million people die each year, where as 131.4 million people are born each year. Do the math, and that is a grand total of approximately 70.1 million humans added to the total population each year.
That means that diseases as they are today will not be sufficient enough to keep human populations at enviornmentally acceptable levels, as almost 3 TIMES more people are born than killed each year. This isn't helped by the fact that doctors are eradicating more diseases than you can name, and they are stretching the human life span more and more. Mere disease alone will not control the MASSIVE human population. What we need are actual predators, like wolves that can actually hunt humans. That would be a more effective way to halt any further population growth and enviornmental strain.
In this argument, one of Con's statements stuck out like lightning in a dark and colorless sky:
"My opponent also seems to believe that the earth is something we must protect at all costs, however I disagree"
Can you believe that? Here is what Con simply meant:
A. We as animals do not need oxygen to breathe (false), so we don't need the Amazon (which produces roughly one THIRD of all the oxygen in the world's atmosphere).
B. We at the current age do not need planet earth to survive (despite the fact that all of our natural recources in the current age are from earth, and we cannot simply move to the moon, venus, or mars).
C. We do not need other living things to survive (despite the fact that they supply a good portion of our food, AND are vital for the ecosystems that hold us back from extinction).
Not only is that INCREDIBLY selfish, but as I said above, it is impossible to survive without earth the same way it is impossible to survive a Siberian winter without any form of shelter.Yet Con resides with the delusional opinion that such feats are possible at the current date.
4. WMDs and WWII
In this argument, Con states a vastly incorrect fact:
"most widely accepted estimates for allied deaths were about 500,000"
Allow me to correct you: total death count for WWII was approximately 56 MILLION, 21 MILLION of those being Russians, who were sided with the ALLIES. This INCLUDES casualties on the pacific front. So in reality, the "genocide" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (approximately 80,000 people died at each city) was VERY justified as MILLIONS would have suffered in a war where Japan simply refused to surrender until something big was unleashed on them. With the threat of total destruction looming overhead, the Japanese surrendered, saving MILLIONS of lives on BOTH sides
(The argument above contradicts previous arguments, but is merely a different view on the justification of mass killings)
For this argument, Con has said what follows:
"Finally, and most important, no one has the right to take another person life, and even if it may make living conditions for you better, doesn't mean you can kill."
What Con suggests is that not only do innocents not deserve to die, but the same fact also applies to criminals. No matter what the crime, whether it be burglary, rape, or torturing people to death, society cannot lay a finger on them. That is contorted logic since sitting in a prison cell isn't NEARLY as painful as torture. If criminals ever get Parole, there has been cases where said parole worker had murdered the people he/she worked with. I would not want someone like Adam Lanza doing my laundry, as I know he has a bad reputation with kids...
(The above argument contradicts some previous argument, but is another view into how killing can be justified)
Let's see what Con shall use for defense.
I thank the opposition for his well written rebutal and wish him the best of luck in his next argument!
In his recent argument, my opponenet stated this, a very interesting statement, that leads to a few logical fallacies.
"The fact that Con has failed to take note of is that no one person shares the same morals."
My opponent seems to be indicating that he, or some other people consider murder and okay thing, when protecting the human race. At no point is killing innocent people okay by any standards, that at least is a basic of morality. If you disagree, I would argue that you have no morals, except to keep recources to your self.
Still remains the question, if my opponent is so willing to kill people to save the many, would he die to save us?
If genocide was allowed than so would murder, and theft, and all other sorts of crime's that, help destory earths population.
This would cause complete chaos, and soceity and civilization would fall anyway.
Because this has become a large issue in this debate, will quickly close it down, by showing some real facts.
-From 2000 to 2010 only 6% of the amazon was destroyed, and after this now about 45% is now safe guarded according to conservation group RAISG
-Rates of destruction have fell over 80% since 2004
While these are all bad numbers, and the amazon's destruction must be stopped, there are better ways to solve this than letting people murder other people.
--WII and WMD--
Apologies to my opponent but he has a bit of his facts wrong. The only area of the war I was talking about were the two opptions allies had for finishing the war.
#1 The A-Bomb
Launched twice against japan, killing many people, reasonable numbers range form 250,000 to 350,000.
#2 Operation Downfall
Leaders against this operation estimated half a million, but casualties were probably going to be lower. Best estimates are abut 450,00.
The point here is that, yes, these bombs prevented allied deaths, but caused tons of suffering on the japanese, destroying two primary cities.
The difference between the two death casualties are roughly the same, and war time situations are no reason to kill peaceful people in a peaceful time!
-We need to protect our natural recources, but the way to do that is not murder thousands of innoecent people,
-I never said that I dont care about our earth, only that humanity is more important
-Involving war time situations, they really have no ground in an issue where you are debating whether its okay to murder innoecent people
-The idea of killing innoecents is to save society, but if we start making it okay to murder, than society is already gone
-If we are all to die, let it be my food shortages and natural disasters, with society still intact then by fellow people
I thank the veiwer for reading, and for my opponent for his arguments!
In conclusion, I urge voters to vote pro, as there are instances where mass killings can be seen as reasonable. This includes, but is not limited to the reasons of which are previously stated above. It might not be the prettiest thing in the world, but there are always reasons for it. Animals kill, some plants kill, so why must it be assumed that humans cannot? I rest my case.
Final note: I wish to thank HipsterCloud for his time and for initiating one of the most enjoyable debates I have had to date. He made this debate enjoyable as he never made it an easy victory, keeping both debater and reader intrigued. Kudos to Hipster, and hope to debate more in the future.
HipsterCloud forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 11 months ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, the final round was forfeited. Now onto the arguments. Pro began by introducing in the population argument. This could have easily been refuted since the world is not overpopulated and the world population can fit into Texas. Sine this rebuttal wasn't brought up I have no choice than to give Pro the win for this contention. The overpopulation argument was essentially concede by Con since he did not respond to the argument that the casualty rate would have been higher on the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Morality was undefined so it bares no weight upon the resolution. Predators was used as a rebuttal however it only outline one part of Pro's argument. Therefore Pro get the win on this. Con then falls into the trap of subjectivity. He states that he loves animals but the human race is superior. Subjectivity is not valid in a debate of this seriousness. Pro wins this contention. Con then falls into subjectivity again with killing. He cannot state it is wrong with evidence.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.