The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Human suffering can be ended with the elimination of the human race

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,727 times Debate No: 22282
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




This round will be given to ensure acceptance. The debate begins next round. I don't care how you (the opponent) present your case as long as your message is clearly stated. This debate is for fun, but a level of seriousness is expected. If one isn't going to seriously argue the issue then i'd prefer that the individual not accept this debate. Thank you and i wish my opponent good luck.


Thank you Vitreous, I'm looking forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The first round shall be cases, and the remaining shall be rebuttals. Anyways, lets get started.

Human-A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

Observation:Religious examples/beliefs can not exist within this debate since religions view that souls go to heaven or hell, not the physical human being. Some religions also believe in reincarnation. Yet the individual's soul would reincarnate into an animal as no humans exist to allow that reincarnation. Yet the primary reason is that religion/beliefs in general carry conflicting ideas as to the afterlife, yet not a single one has been proven to be valid. No religion has been proven to be true.

I contend that by eradicating the human race, one achieves the resolution. Since no human race exists, then thus you deduce that suffering cannot be experienced by a non existent species. The short term suffering one feels is permissible to this, because that momentous instant of suffering would lead to the long term end of suffering and the goal is to end long term suffering, whatever the means. Again, note that if the human race ceases to exist, the human population can not continue to undergo suffering(a characteristic of life) as they can no longer experience living characterisitcs. Thus you affirm.


"Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact." – William James. I am in agreement with American philosopher William James because regardless of how terrible things may be, life is always worth living. Regardless of whether or not pain is present, life is still important and it is a privilege to be alive. Pain is only temporary, death is permanent. It for these reasons and those that follow that I am compelled to negate today's resolution, RESOLVED: Human suffering can be ended with the elimination of the human race.

For clarification of today's round I will offer the following definitions:
Suffering- the pain, misery, or loss experienced by a person who suffers
Elimination-the act of removing or getting rid of something
Human Race- all of the living human inhabitants of the earth

Contention 1: Elimination of the human race is not justifiable by human suffering. Considering the Pro's primary goal is to put an end to suffering, I'd like to address the fact that my opponent has chosen a contradictory method to do so. My opponent is suggesting putting an end to human suffering by eliminating the entire human race, which can only be done in a way that would cause people to suffer not only physically but emotionally as well. Also, if it is my opponent's intention to put an end to human suffering, by eliminating an entire human race, they have in effect put an end to not only the negative aspects of life, but the positive things in life as well. This is a direct contradiction of everything the opponent should value. As the pro, my opponents primary objective is to put an end to human suffering, defined as pain or misery, which clearly suggests that human beings should not have to feel anything of the sort, leaving everything other than happiness out of the question.

Contention 2: There are other forms of suffering occurring. While eliminating the human race may put an end to human suffering, and any other human emotion for that matter, it would only cause conflict in the world. For example, in today's society we have zoos, aquariums, etc. By eliminating the entire human race my opponent would only be inducing more suffering upon the other inhabitants of the earth. The animals in zoos, aquariums, etc. rely heavily upon the human beings to regulate their artificial environment. In fact, there are large numbers of endangered species in zoos and by killing human beings, the endangered species would eventually die off as well. Seeing as animals in captivity cannot provide for themselves, humans are almost essential on the earth.

Contention 3: Not all human suffering is negative. Today human suffering has a negative connotation and is viewed as hurtful. That is not always the case. For example, during pregnancies women suffer for 9 months, and although they are hurting they are doing something positive for society by contributing another member. Giving birth causes immense amounts of suffering, but when it is over something positive has happened. Therefore I must disagree that all suffering is negative.

Contention 4: The world is reliant on human beings to protect it. While human beings have had a negative impact on the environment, they have also done positive things for it as well. Today we have environmental protection groups and agencies that do everything in their power to protect the environment. Without human beings to protect the environment, nature would destroy itself thus causing ruin on earth.

Rebuttal: My opponent claims that the primary goal at hand is to put an end to suffering. By that logic, they are contradicting themselves. They are creating a greater amount of suffering and that suffering will be the only feeling the human race will have ever experienced. In other words, what is the point of destroying the entire human race in an attempt to put an end to suffering? No one would be alive to experience the lack of human suffering, thus making my opponent's goal pointless. Also, the resolution can be achieved in other ways such as helping those in suffering, not causing them to suffer more. Therefore I do not believe that ending the human race is the best way to end human suffering.
Debate Round No. 2


I ask for the fourth rebuttal (not the next but the last) my opponent just write "I urge a Con vote" as to keep an equal number of rebuttals.
For the benefit of those reading, i will post my refutation in this format: analysis of cases, examination of rebuttal, voting points, then burdens.


First, let my opponent's definitions carry through his case. His first contention states i contradict myself by attempting to end suffering through suffering. It seems he missed my point about the instantaneous death. First brief suffering is not necessary to achieve my method(no suffering can be possible), and second, even if it were, I seek to end long term HUMAN suffering (even if brief suffering is necessary). It is the ends that justify the means. And since the end is no suffering, that brief suffering is excused. Furthermore, his focus on this contention shifts from the resolution to why life should be lived. Since this makes up a great bulk of this contention, his first contention can be dropped. His second contention is completely extra resolutional since it does not tie into HUMAN SUFFERING, the only type of suffering that should be focused on. Since my opponent clearly address suffering BESIDES human suffering, this argument is dropped by default. His third contention only outlines that human suffering can be beneficial, but in no way addresses how my method cannot end human suffering, so drop this point as well. His fourth contention also remains extra-resolutional since it deals with a subject other than human suffering, so this is dropped by default.


First off, my observation persists since my opponent showed no refutation. Second, my definition of human stands since the opponent seems to show no refutation to this either. Move to my point in which i present my argument. My opponent gives an argument only to my point of "ends justify the means". The rest of my case still stands, including the main idea stating that eradicating the human race leads to an end in human suffering since no one is alive to experience that very human suffering. Thus i extend my entire case on the premise that it main and sole idea was never addressed.

My opponent continuously overlooks the idea that the brief suffering experienced would lead to an eternal end of human suffering. He also seems to only tie his first contention into his rebuttal, clearly dropping the other three. And since his rebuttal is a summary of his first contention, all my attacks directed towards the contention will be directed towards the rebuttal and vice versa. Furthermore, my goal does not mean an individual has to live to see the end of human suffering, i just contend that without the human race, human suffering can not persist (clearly showing i've achieved my goal). The "other ways to end suffering" is extra resolutional since alternatives do not demean the effectiveness of my chosen method. So drop all these points, carry the drop on his first contention to his rebuttal, and note my opponent is left without an argument.

Voting Points
-The main purpose of the Pro was never addressed by the con. He only lists arguments as to why killing is wrong and not why i can't achieve the end of human suffering through eliminating the human race.
-My opponent failed to address the core of my case, leaving it virtually unharmed.
-I've dropped every contention of my opponent.
-The drop on his first contention ties over to his rebuttal. You can then extend that drop and state his entire rebuttal is dropped.
-Con never stated that my method was not effective in achieving its goal, so i urge the vote automatically be given to the Pro.
-Without a case to base his arguments on, the Con should automatically lose since he has no way of refering back to his contentions to dispute me.

-The burden the Pro faces is that his method is effective. Since this was never disputed, then the Pro clearly fulfills his burden.
-The Con has to present clear arguments as to how my method does not achieve its goal. If he fails to do so, the vote must automatically be given to the Pro.
-The Con must link his case to proving how the Resolution can not achieve its goal. If he fails to do so, the Pro is automatically given the vote.
-The Pro has no burden relating to suffering other than human suffering. If the Con continues to focus on such suffering, he does not address the resolution and the Pro is automatically given the vote.

I urge a Pro ballot and await my opponent's response.


^Fxck that. Let's be logical. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


Logic can be carried by the Pro: eliminate the human race, no humans can suffer since there is no living human to undergo suffering. Since that was my opps only response extend all my points, all my burdens, all my refutations and note that the Pro is clearly winning because:
-Con provides no refutation
-Con never showed how Pro wasn't achieving his burden.
-No burdens were addressed by my opponent clearly showing that he acknowledges his own failure to provide refutation.
I urge a Pro ballot


Sorry. I'm stupid. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RinWindSan 5 years ago
actually that was pretty cool lolz
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Uhhh.......what? I'm a little confused as to what happened, but it looked like con conceded.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
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: lol ridiculous debate...the resolution upholds itself as Pro pointed out. Con gets conduct simply b/c the res. was so ridiculous...