The Instigator
Greener49
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Strategery
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Human civilization on earth will end no matter what

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: 5/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 74639
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Greener49

Pro

This debate will be based on scientific reasoning.

In this debate con will be trying to disprove that human civilization will not end on earth, but live for ever here.
Strategery

Con


I'm going to say no because its still theoretically possible for mankind in the very distant future to invent a time machine or some other technology means of manipulating wormholes for time travel (which can exist under Einstein’s special theory of relativity & space-time). Thus forever delaying the inevitable "heat death" of the universe while simultaneously prolonging human life on earth by traveling backwards in time.


As PRO, my opponent must prove that it is still mathematically impossible for human civilization to continue on earth for eternity, and not just improvable. Thus far I have demonstrated at least one scientific example where civilization can possibly be allowed to exist on earth forever and ever. PRO must now fulfill his own BOP and prove to us that human civilization on earth will actually end - "no matter what."


Debate Round No. 1
Greener49

Pro

My opponent has brought up a very good point, but the problem is it's very flawed. As we all know time travel can be very risky, and can screw with the future. So say we went back in time to delay the inevitable heat death. We would still end up dyeing, firth of all when we would go back in time we would not be able to live side by side with the people or creature's that are on earth at that time. So we would have to kill them of, but by doing that we would all die to because we where never born. Secondly if we could live with what was on the planet at the time, which is impossible. We still would have do it all over again multiple times and one time out of billion time's we save are self's the time machine and manipulated worm hole machine will fail because nothing can be always perfect. Plus pollution, over population global, warming and nuclear war could all happen before we possibly invent time travel and all these things could make the world inhabitable. Their for human civilization will end on earth.

My opponent now has to prove that human civilization will continue on earth and prove me wrong in his rebuttal.
Strategery

Con

Most of your argument above involves either fortune telling or speculation; such as "so say we went back in time..." statements where no one can know for sure how events will play out. Whose to know for instance, that pollution and nuclear warfare will not be solved in the future, or global warming won't be reversed? The only things we can know for certain are things that are mathematically impossible, and time travel - at least according to Einstein's theories- is theoretically possible. Whereas scientists speculate that the casualty paradox that you've alluded to (killing off your parents), may be solved by the existence of parallel universes or alternate time lines (http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu...) - we don't know for sure, and neither do you.

To close, just because things are improbable does not mean that they're impossible; PRO must still prove that humanity on earth will end "no matter what."
Debate Round No. 2
Greener49

Pro

Again, you have brought up some good point's.But you are being a hypocrite by saying my statement needs fortune telling or speculation, when your augment is based of fortune telling and speculation. Nuclear warfare, pollution and Global warming have the chance of being resolved, but they are here all ready and have the possibility to end civilization on earth in ten years or less.To prove that here is an website about it http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com... 2015 say hello to a ice free arctic.But then there is the inevitable heat death that is going to happen. Your theory to stop this is time travel which we might create to save are self's. This theory has the problem of us changing some thing, and us never being born.The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist. Finally, I will say this again human's are not perfect, so are time machine will not always work properly after the billion's of time's we use it to save our self's one time it will fail and end human civilization on earth as we know it.

My opponent now has to prove that human civilization on earth will all ways continue and we will all ways be here.
Strategery

Con

The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist.
But if time-travel does exist and is possible (as science thus far says it is); then there is a way that life on earth could continue to last forever and ever. Because of the existence of possibility for an event like this to occur (even if the probability is remote) the resolution cannot be affirmed. The resolution (and "no matter what" clause) demands that human time-travel must be mathematically impossible.
I will say this again human's are not perfect, so are time machine will not always work properly after the billion's of time's we use it to save our self's one time it will fail and end human civilization on earth as we know it.

So the safeguard is that man will just simply go back in time again (or forward into the future) and stop the time-machine failure from occurring in the first place. This scenario is possible.

The only thing that you have brought up for this is the possibility of parallel universes that we don't know exist.

Absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence. Parallel universes could still be potentially be discovered in the future; and thus the world will not end "no matter what."

..

The resolution is negated. PRO must learn not to confuse low mathematical probability for impossibility. PRO again, must still prove that humankind on earth will still end "no matter what."

Debate Round No. 3
Greener49

Pro

Greener49 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by HomelySherlock 2 years ago
HomelySherlock
Both of you are making extremely weak arguments. Con should have had this in the bag - all he would need to do is point out the Pro had to prove there is no reasonable scenario in which Humanity can survive, and there certainly is. The problems Pro pointed out CAN kill us, but may not. While Con should have had this in the bag, they went off on ridiculous tangents such as time travel or wormholes. I'm not sure who to vote on this one.
Posted by Strategery 2 years ago
Strategery
I meant "improbable." - Typo.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
The inevitable heat death of the universe.
Posted by Elord 2 years ago
Elord
No one smart enough is going to accept. You could argue that humans will die from some cataclysmic event, or say technology will get to a point where humans leave Earth for other planets. Con has to prove that it's possible for a ever growing population to live forever on limited resources.

I would change if I were you, unless you want an easy win.
No votes have been placed for this debate.