The Instigator
purplehaze
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Cannibalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,035 times Debate No: 9252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

purplehaze

Pro

If by tomorrow morning the entire human race somehow came to believe that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity and decided that overpopulation was the first big issue, Cannibalism would be the most logical approach.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent's opening argument contained little else besides a short introduction. Thus, I will take what he said as the resolution.

"If by tomorrow morning the entire human race somehow came to believe that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity and decided that overpopulation was the first big issue, Cannibalism would be the most logical approach."

I believe that even in this regard, Cannibalism would *not* be the most logical approach. However, as I am the contender, I will allow the instigator to give an argument before going in depth, as the instigator has the heavier burden of proof. I have a plan in mind that is far superior to cannibalism but before I reveal it, I wuld like my opponent to give a fully framed argument so that I am sure that my proposal would be relevant to the scope that my opponent has in mind.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
purplehaze

Pro

No problem bud.

Well, were we all to decide that we should all live our lives with a sole interest of preserving the human race I think that Cannibalism would be the most logical approach for the following reasons.

1. Its good to recycle.

2. If everyone was to agree that this was what was best for the human race and did not care if they had to die then we would easily be able to pick out and eat all of those who would be least beneficial to the human race first. Which would leave only the most intelligent of our race to reproduce.

3. We would be able to temporarily stop worrying about farming as our food would be farming itself.

4. We would be giving the planet a break from the methanes clouds that are cows which would be help preserve our planets atmosphere at the same time.

5. I read somewhere that humans taste like pork.

I might be able to come up with a few more in the next round.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and will now offer my argument.

My opponent's proposition is that we take the most useless members of society and eat them, for the various reasons he has outlined. However, I have found an alternative method that deals with his most important points.

The useless members of society will be used to fuel electric energy by turning a massive turbine. When they die of exhaustion, their bodies will be used as fertilizer and fodder for farming, instead of being eaten.

This proposition is better in the following ways:

1. We bypass any sort of moral discomfort in consuming a fellow human being
2. Useless members of society are used to produce a resource that the intelligent members can use.
3. Simply eating them provides little resources compared to using them to generate energy and then using their remains to fuel farming.

To respond to my opponent's five points:

1. Yes, it is good to recycle, but the recycling should be as productive as possible. Farming from the fertilized soil of human remains would be much more productive than eating humans outright, as the nutrients would allow for bountiful crop harvest after harvest.

2. Working the useless humans to death would have the same result, except that we use them to provide much needed electrical energy. We can eat many things besides humans, why waste a resource like that? Even the msot useless people can be used to push a wheel or crank a gear

3. As said above, my proposition would have the exact same effects except on a greater scale. Less mouths to feed, more food, plus a whole lot more.

4. The energy sources we obtain from working the useless humans to death will reduce our need for fossil fuels and help the atmosphere much more than it would to reduce the number of cows.

5. Pigs also taste like pork. We can use the extra yield of crop to raise pigs, which produce more meat in a given maturity cycle than humans do. More meat for less food.

I too will have more supporting reasons in the next round. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
purplehaze

Pro

"The useless members of society will be used to fuel electric energy by turning a massive turbine. When they die of exhaustion, their bodies will be used as fertilizer and fodder for farming, instead of being eaten."

"This proposition is better in the following ways:"

"1. We bypass any sort of moral discomfort in consuming a fellow human being
2. Useless members of society are used to produce a resource that the intelligent members can use.
3. Simply eating them provides little resources compared to using them to generate energy and then using their remains to fuel farming."

Cons alternative does deal with quite a few issues at the one time but unfortunately I cant see a human driven turbine reaching a speed where significant power could be generated and if we were to allow them to simply just drop dead from exhaustion our scenery would soon end up like the one in the movie "the happening".

Also I see no way in which Cannibalism would stand in the way of enslaving the idiots to preserve fossil fuels.

On my opponents points.

1. There should be no moral discomfort seeing as we would all be living only to preserve humanitys existence and anything that could be seen to benefit this would be morally right.
2. Food is the most important resource for our survival.
3. Seeing as eating them would in no way stop us from using them to generate energy beforehand, the argument boils down to the best use for the human bodies.

To his responces to my 5 points.

"1. Yes, it is good to recycle, but the recycling should be as productive as possible. Farming from the fertilized soil of human remains would be much more productive than eating humans outright, as the nutrients would allow for bountiful crop harvest after harvest."

I agree that this would be most productive were there not most likely huge meteors hurtling through space in our direction that our time would be better spent preparing for. Eating ourselves would get rid of the need to farm temporarily which would allow us to concentrate more on some of the bigger issues that might be threatening our existence.

"2. Working the useless humans to death would have the same result, except that we use them to provide much needed electrical energy. We can eat many things besides humans, why waste a resource like that? Even the msot useless people can be used to push a wheel or crank a gear"

There is no reason why we couldnt work the humans to near death before eating them.

"3. As said above, my proposition would have the exact same effects except on a greater scale. Less mouths to feed, more food, plus a whole lot more."

Our arguments are more or less the exact same besides the fact that you would let them just drop from being over worked while I would have them work and then line up which would create less work meaning less to distract us from the big issues. And even though food is an important resource it would be quite easy to come by after the human population has decreased sufficiently. Depending on whether or not we manage to keep the earth from being hit by a meteor which would render it uninhabitable to us that is. There more we have on it the better!!

4. The energy sources we obtain from working the useless humans to death will reduce our need for fossil fuels and help the atmosphere much more than it would to reduce the number of cows.

"Well seeing as cannibalism wouldnt stop us from using useless humans to reduce our use of fossil fuels before their deaths that means my idea would be helping the atmosphere by reducing our use of fossil fuels and getting rid of all the cows while yours would only achieve the first one.

"5. Pigs also taste like pork. We can use the extra yield of crop to raise pigs, which produce more meat in a given maturity cycle than humans do. More meat for less food."

Pigs wont make their own way to the slaughter house which may distract us from more important work and slow us down in achieving survivalist perfection.

Thank you for the debate Kleptin.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and shall now conclude.

My opponent has correctly reduced the differences between our proposals to just a few points. I shall address these points, explain why my opponent's points of contention are incorrect or irrelevant, and offer more reasons why my proposal is better.

1. "I cant see a human driven turbine reaching a speed where significant power could be generated and if we were to allow them to simply just drop dead from exhaustion our scenery would soon end up like the one in the movie "the happening"."

http://www.green-trust.org...
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info...

Pedal power has long been used as a way to provide energy and if we farm it from humans, we can definitely generate enough. After we have exhausted a human to the point of complete uselessness (when the amount of food we give becomes more costly than the energy he generates) we simply take him to a "hospital", where we can allow him to die, then use his body to fertilize fields. This will make sure that none of his "coworkers" sees people dropping dead constantly.

"Also I see no way in which Cannibalism would stand in the way of enslaving the idiots to preserve fossil fuels."

I don't either, it's just that my proposal does the same thing and generates extra energy while fueling better food production.

As per my opponent's counter arguments:

Me: We bypass any sort of moral discomfort in consuming a fellow human being
My opponent: There should be no moral discomfort seeing as we would all be living only to preserve humanitys existence and anything that could be seen to benefit this would be morally right.

This is incorrect. There will always be levels of discomfort in doing things. We have never discussed WHY humanity is in this situation, thus, my opponent cannot suggest that they have been in this situation for a long time. As such, people would definitely have much more trouble killing and eating each other as opposed to enslaving them, working them to death, then using their bodies as farming fodder.

Me: Useless members of society are used to produce a resource that the intelligent members can use.
My opponent: Food is the most important resource for our survival.

Yes, and my method would provide more food, while also providing enough resources to power machines, which enhance our chances of survival further.

Me: Simply eating them provides little resources compared to using them to generate energy and then using their remains to fuel farming.
My opponent: Seeing as eating them would in no way stop us from using them to generate energy beforehand, the argument boils down to the best use for the human bodies.

Correct. My method has far more benefits.

Now, as per my opponent's 5 other counterarguments:

ME: Yes, it is good to recycle, but the recycling should be as productive as possible. Farming from the fertilized soil of human remains would be much more productive than eating humans outright, as the nutrients would allow for bountiful crop harvest after harvest.

OPPONENT: I agree that this would be most productive were there not most likely huge meteors hurtling through space in our direction that our time would be better spent preparing for. Eating ourselves would get rid of the need to farm temporarily which would allow us to concentrate more on some of the bigger issues that might be threatening our existence.

This is assuming an unlikely situation. Who said anything about meteors? In addition, if this threat was so imminent, we would still have plenty of food available. Furthermore, farmers would probably be useless in defending against meteors but will be good at farming. This makes my opponent's point irrelevant. Thus, we can conclude that in any situation that is likely, my proposal is much better.

2. ME: Working the useless humans to death would have the same result, except that we use them to provide much needed electrical energy. We can eat many things besides humans, why waste a resource like that? Even the msot useless people can be used to push a wheel or crank a gear

OPPONENT: There is no reason why we couldnt work the humans to near death before eating them.

Except the fact that eating them would yield much less food in the long run.

3. ME: As said above, my proposition would have the exact same effects except on a greater scale. Less mouths to feed, more food, plus a whole lot more.

OPPONENT: Our arguments are more or less the exact same besides the fact that you would let them just drop from being over worked while I would have them work and then line up which would create less work meaning less to distract us from the big issues. And even though food is an important resource it would be quite easy to come by after the human population has decreased sufficiently. Depending on whether or not we manage to keep the earth from being hit by a meteor which would render it uninhabitable to us that is. There more we have on it the better!!

My opponent keeps speaking of imaginary "big issues" which were never discussed and thus, can be ignored by the audience. Furthermore, my opponent says that food is an important resource. Killing and eating humans will provide food quickly, but in the long run, destroys a good resource. Working them to death, then using them as fertilizer yields much more food and kills people as well (especially if we don't feed them much). The audience should not be fooled, my opponent is mixing two situations.

4. ME: The energy sources we obtain from working the useless humans to death will reduce our need for fossil fuels and help the atmosphere much more than it would to reduce the number of cows.

OPPONENT: Well seeing as cannibalism wouldnt stop us from using useless humans to reduce our use of fossil fuels before their deaths that means my idea would be helping the atmosphere by reducing our use of fossil fuels and getting rid of all the cows while yours would only achieve the first one.

http://ourviewsonthenews.com...

Cows don't really destroy the ozone layer. Everything releases methane so this point is null and void. My proposal is still more efficient in all manners.

5. ME: Pigs also taste like pork. We can use the extra yield of crop to raise pigs, which produce more meat in a given maturity cycle than humans do. More meat for less food."

OPPONENT: Pigs wont make their own way to the slaughter house which may distract us from more important work and slow us down in achieving survivalist perfection.

Again, the focus on "more important work". None of this was specified and thus, the audience should ignore all mentions of these imaginary "important issues". I shall respond to this still though. Pigs won't make their way to the slaughter house, but humans won't either. We would need to corral them the same way.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent attempts to mislead the audience by making mentions of meteors and a lack of time and sophisticated problems that limit specialization of labor. None of this was discussed and none of it is reasonable. My proposal gives more food and other resources than my opponent's proposal and is more efficient in every logical way. The manpower required to carry out my opponent's proposal is equal to or greater than for mine. There are absolutely no arguments standing on my opponent's end.

The resolution is negated. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
Cndct: =
S/G: =
Arg: Con
Src: =

Mass sterilization and liquidation of incapable workers seems like a better alternative. Great debate.
Posted by theCall 7 years ago
theCall
What's the purpose anyway if you posed tons of comments and nobody read it?
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
On the contrary, I want people to pay attention to your comments. That's why I want to know if you want a rematch. Nothing you say here will impact the debate.
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
Nice way to get people to not pay attention to my comments bud.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
It's bad form to continue a debate in the comments section. If you feel like we aren't done yet, challenge me to another debate.
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
1. "I cant see a human driven turbine reaching a speed where significant power could be generated and if we were to allow them to simply just drop dead from exhaustion our scenery would soon end up like the one in the movie "the happening"."

Made a fool of myself there but its irrevelant to our argument...
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
"Again, the focus on "more important work". None of this was specified and thus, the audience should ignore all mentions of these imaginary "important issues".

"decided that overpopulation was the first big issue,"

See the "first".....
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
dono how that comment came up again but anyway....

"Except the fact that eating them would yield much less food in the long run."

Well as I said food is plentiful whereas time is precious.
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
Why ignore any mention of other big issues?

"If by tomorrow morning the entire human race somehow came to believe that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity and decided that overpopulation was the first big issue,"

Overpopulation is only the first because I chose for it to be first.

"Correct. My method has far more benefits."

Your method would slow us down in achieving survivalist perfection.

"If by tomorrow morning the entire human race somehow came to believe that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity"

Would we not want to have our survival guaranteed as soon as possible? Like why would you concentrate on food when it is plentiful?

And where do morals come from? Are they not a result of society and its interests? What if society had only one interest........"that their sole purpose was to preserve humanity"
Posted by NotPurpleHaze 7 years ago
NotPurpleHaze
"Furthermore, farmers would probably be useless in defending against meteors but will be good at farming."

You dont think that there would be a nice bit of labouring to be done?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
purplehazeKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 7 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
purplehazeKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
purplehazeKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
purplehazeKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by JonathanCid 7 years ago
JonathanCid
purplehazeKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06