The Instigator
No-this-is-patrick
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
corey561
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Death of humans is a good thing in atleast one way. Be sincere, no trolls.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
No-this-is-patrick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,519 times Debate No: 29236
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

No-this-is-patrick

Pro

The death of humans is a good thing in atleast one way. You have to state your opposing argument and suport it.
corey561

Con

The death of humans is a bad thing because of all the potential a human has. Someone could have the potential to cure cancer and other diseases, and you're saying that death is good? Could you be a bit more specific as to what way death is good?
Debate Round No. 1
No-this-is-patrick

Pro

Before you jump to conclusions, i do not have to be specific. I said that the death of a human being is good in AT LEAST ONE WAY, so instead of me having to be specific, you should have read my argument starter and tried to comprehend it more. Now, the death of a human being is good because the risk of over-population on planet earth. The occasional death of a human being reduces population in a good way, according to these statistics from "Live Science" the Earth's biosphere carrying capacity population is 7 Billion, and our current population is 6.7 billion. If it exceeds that mark it is said that our recources may be scarce, and the chances of illneses would become greater by a dramatic increase. I did not say ANYTHING about morality, and i stated AT LEAST ONE reoson like i said, so therefore i am correct, (i love literacy). In conclusion, the death of human biengs is good for decreace of population. I said nothing about morality like you stated, and i gave AT LEAST ONE REOSON, so that prooves my statement correct, and that cannot be altered.
corey561

Con

Humans occupy 1%-3% of the Earth. While death does prevent overpopulation from happening, it wouldn't necessarily be a 'good' thing because 'good' and 'bad' are two terms that have many different meanings to some people. Death is upsetting when it happens to a family member, so you really cannot tell what is good or bad because they are very vague terms.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
100% agree with likespeace RFD below.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "Humans occupy 1%-3% of the Earth. While death does prevent overpopulation from happening,"

You conceded your opponent's point. I'm sure you could've found a better follow-up after quoting that (unsourced) statistic. One plausible way to use your statistic to formulate an argument is that, since the biosphere is nowhere near full, there is not yet an overpopulation problem. Therefore, that is not currently a benefit of death, although one day it might be.

> "Death is upsetting when it happens to a family member"

Irrelevant, since the premise was it was good in at least one way. It could be bad in 99 other ways, and undesirable in general, and the initial premise would still be unchallenged.

> "it wouldn't necessarily be a 'good' thing because 'good' and 'bad' are two terms that have many different meanings to some people. , so you really cannot tell what is good or bad because they are very vague terms."

This is your most challenging point, that good and bad are subjective. However, you say that they only are subjective for "some" people, leaving it objective for most. Google's definition is: "To be desired or approved of." From this perspective, humanity (of which we are both presumably members) would clearly prefer not to have overcrowding.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Noumena 4 years ago
Noumena
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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: Pro worded the resolution in a way that was borderline abusive i.e., there was absolutely no way for him to lose. His argument (overpopulation) rests on an unspoken moral premise (that overpopulation is bad, means to stop it are good). However, Con never questioned it and thus his only objection (that it's unlikely) isn't enough to refute the point. The scenario hasn't obtained at this point but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Con's moral relativism point in R2 was unsupported and abusive in that Pro had no way of refuting it.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, well Pro worded his debate so that it is impossible to lose. Arguments to him because of this line: "the death of human biengs is good for decreace of population." Yep, I have to agree, humans dying is good for a decrease of the population. Spelling and grammar to Con for painfully obvious reasons. Odd, because Pro said he loves literacy... anyways, conduct to Con because Pro used ad hominem.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry con, Pro took this, you didn't really argue anything. You get the spelling grammar point though.:) HOLD UP, changed my mind, just re-read the way he phrased the prompt. Taking my more convincing arguments points away from Pro. He said DEATH OF HUMANS not some humans or whatever, makes it sound like the whole race.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to actually give one way in which death is actually good, that can't better be solved with a decreased birth rate. All points to Con aside from Sources which is a tie.
Vote Placed by tennis47 4 years ago
tennis47
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Death is fascinating.
Vote Placed by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: Pro spelled Reason "Reoson" Conduct: Same as other RFD's Arguments: I don't think either side did good enough for this vote. Con failed to adequately refute Pro, but Pro clearly did not comprehend what his job was if he thought he 'did not have to be specific' he was the only one who needed to say something specific and he waited until the final round to do meaning he had an opportunity to counter rebuttal but shot himself in the foot the ability to do such. Sources: Pro is the only debater to sight something "live science"
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't like how PRO attacked CON in round #2. Otherwise, RFD same as likespeace.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
No-this-is-patrickcorey561Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD. I award sources to Pro since he provided a source as evidence for his argument while Con did not. I award conduct to Con since Pro posed a loaded question.