Human impact on the rate of animal extinction
Debate Rounds (2)
If so, then definitely yes.
Every animal represents a species and humans are no different. In a natural ecosystem, species vie for resources to survive. There are limited resources in the world, so it is impossible for all species to flourish exponentially and share. That means some species have to be subjugated, eliminated and killed. It's just how nature works.
Now you seem to be saying that we shouldn't ever ever ever kill animals and such, but that goes against the natural workings of evolutionary competition.
Killing other species isn't a right or privilege, it's just what happens.
Since you didn't say anything against it after I've suggested it, this debate is about whether humans should ever have the right to kill non-humans.
I know you're trying to sympathize with other species. I do think that it's sad that the wonders of diversity in life are being buried forever in the past, but dwelling on the past and limiting ourselves with forced moral codes like
"never ever kill any and all things"
is a crippling blow to the human species. If a strong, voracious alien species were to come to Earth and start to fight us for space and resources, we have no choice but to compete. Not killing and letting them subjugate us is special suicide.
We kill viruses, cockroaches, and pests all time.
In the case of special competition, this right is natural and given.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro's resolution was unclear, Con assumed that the debate was about animal worth and provided arguments towards killing animals. Pro's arguments relied on emotion and used a fallacious example to prove their point, while Con showed this example didn't apply to the debate and that we already kill non-humans all the time, so it is essential for our survival that we kill animals.
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.