The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Goverenment has made the human race physicaly weak

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 6/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 55882
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




With a government there are rules and consequences and since these rules protect everyone this takes out the survival of the fittest saying which mean that the stron will prevail. But with laws and consequences the weak make it through societ reroducing more weak people. by weak i mean meantally ill. physical disorders and also lower muscle mass. in my opinion moderen society has human evolution at a hult in a way of survival


You have put yourself in quite a hole. First, you must prove that humans have become weaker physically. Second, you must prove that the weaker humans have passed down the weakness through the generations and that the offspring couldn't have down anything to make themselves physically stronger. Third, you must prove that it was in fact the government policies that would have caused the "weak" to survive. So far, I see no evidence.

It is not because of the government policies that people are weak physically. It's because we are fat, lazy people that eat trash and spend too much time doing nothing. I will prove this later on in the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


ok darwins theory of natural selection shows that organisms that are best equiped to survive will. with government they destroy threats aganst the weakest. such as we have vacciens for the flu. say two ppl get the flu and one dies well ththe stronger one lived but with a vaccine the weaker one can may say wel thats science but the government has a huge influence on them things. and on the subject of humans being fat and lazy that element wld be destroyed because if they didnt fight for food or work hard for things they needed they would die. and back on natural selection over time humans would get stronger because the stronger males wld be the only ones able to reproduce because the weaker cloudnt compete


Darwin's theory of natural selection also states that I'm going to win this debate because my arguments are longer than yours. Before I tear down your arguments, I will again point out that you have provided a whopping total of 0 sources of evidence. Therefore, you have nothing to back up your arguments with. This probably means you thought it up in your head. You have to prove your arguments.

Now to the arguments:

Sickness does not equal weakness.
People don't get sick because they are weak. Even if t did mean they were weak, it's not the government's fault that they are sick. This argument is like saying pain means that something is weak. Even the strongest organism in natural selection will feel pain. Two people get the flu. One will die so he uses a vaccine. The other won't, and he refuses the vaccine. The second one takes twice as long to recover from the flu. Just because the first one had a weaker immune system doesn't mean he weak and should've died. He was intelligent. Sometimes strength doesn't win over intelligence. If an organism has the resources to survive and it survives, it cannot be blamed on the government. If someone will die from hunger and find food, you don't blame the food for existing. It's a source for the taking. You cannot blame the government for the existence of a resource.

Strength has little to do with natural selection. Think about it. We survive by intelligence. If it were strength, bears would have us beat. The definition of natural selection is "the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations" (1). Natural selection in this definition has nothing to do with physical strength. Even if we have become more weak, which I disagree that we have, we are still adapting to where we can survive better which is the whole point of it.
-Let's take a look at an example. There once was a rabbit. The tortoise challenged the rabbit (or hare if you would) to a race. The rabbit was clearly superior in speed. I would tell the whole story, but I will assume everybody knows. If you don't, here: (4). In the end, the superiority of speed didn't win. It was perseverance and intelligence.

We are not becoming physically weaker by government policies.
1) Immune system- Our change in food has caused our new found diseases that are causing problems. "It found that around 1 out of 10 cancers (10%) may be linked to diet" (2). It's not because we're weaker humans and definitely not the government's fault. It's the food.

2) Muscle mass- Here's a piece of evidence that sums up this argument. "It was possible that the peculiar metabolism in human muscle was just the result of our modern lifestyle " not an evolutionary shift in our species. Our high-calorie diet might change the way muscle cells generated energy. It was also possible that a sedentary lifestyle made muscles weaker, creating a smaller metabolic demand" (3). This proves that we are becoming weaker due to what we eat and not because the government.

3) Rocky Balboa- We all could be as buff as Rocky if we put our mind to it. The reason we aren't is because we don't try. This guy tried. The reason he became weaker (in Rocky III) and lost the first fight with Mr. T was because he stopped trying for a while. He then went on to prove that he could train and beat his worthy adversary. The government didn't stop him!

Addressing government control of medicine and vaccines. Stating that the government has control of "them things" is not a convincing argument. I need proof. The burden of proof is on you.

In conclusion, my opponent has given no proof for anything, and his ties to natural selection are invalid. The government has not made weaker humans by its policies. If anything, we have let ourselves go. Humans are humans. They all have equal opportunity to make themselves physically stronger. The resolution cannot be upheld.

Debate Round No. 2


tribalwolf forfeited this round.


Extend arguments. I thought as much. My opponent has failed to negate my arguments. My arguments stand. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Unknown_player 2 years ago
Except the fact that pro is an opinion with no evidence... Even if it is an opinion, I at least proved (had evidence for) my point.
Posted by Neuron 2 years ago
Only a Non Governmental society person could be considered for a contrast in Pro and Con. Therein the Contender has no basis for suggesting a non bias opinion. Im Pro on this.
Posted by nicraM 2 years ago
One word, Pro.

No votes have been placed for this debate.