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

Human impact on the rate of animal extinction

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 72425
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I feel that the world has evolved so much that it has forgotten that we all don't own the world it was never ours and never will be. we out of no right are killing our fellow members the animals please state your opinion ASAP!


I don't exactly know what this debate is about, but it seems to be about whether or not humans have the right to kill non-humans?
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.
Debate Round No. 1


as of what you just said if one day any other animal needs a place and kills your entire family for food then? if killing an animals isn't a crime or hunting it to extinction isnt a problem then why not kill your friend and give its body to a cannibal man to eat?. Lets face it the world is going to end if we don't stop this mass extinction that we started, we are unbalancing the ecosystem and we are the reason why we are responsible for many of the animals are going extinct at the rate of 0.01% per year roughly 10,000 species per year...


The justness of a killing depends on the reasons for it. Killing a friend to feed to a cannibal man is bad because a) killing a fellow human being is counter-intuitive to our coexisting species b) killing a friend is counter-intuitive to the human emotional relation you have with said friend, c) a friend is a human, and this debate is about other species.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Radijs 1 year ago
I seriously doubt that I could give a proper debate with just 2 rounds, considering how broad the statement is.

To summarize your statements:

"We don't own the world"
If you look at this simply. If we don't own it, who does? I suspect you mean this in a more philosophical sense then how I'm likely to interpret it. Can you elaborate a little on what you mean with this phrase?

"we out of no right are killing our fellow members the animals "
I'm guessing this means that we do not have the right to kill animals. I'd like you to elaborate why you think that we do not have this right.

If you can elaborate these two points I'll be able to accept your challenge.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 1 year ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
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:03 
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.