The Instigator
IamMe90
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
dulinl
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Humanity should be erased from existence - forever. It is for the good of the planet as a whole.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

IamMe90

Pro

This argument is not "crazy", not "immoral", not "psychopathic"... it is in reality a rational, simple concept that, viewed objectively, will always hold true. The idea is, of course, that humanity as a whole should be wiped out from existence, forever.

First, let's take a view at the history of humanity. We'll start at, say, AD 950. The earth is populated by around 250 million human beings. The planet is still ripe with animal and resource diversity. 650 years later, in the year 1600, the population is still at a stable rate - around 500 million; the population has doubled, but it is understandable given the time elapsed.

However, therein lies our first problem; from 1600 to 2007, 407 years, how can the population have increased to 6 BILLION people, a 12 fold increase in population? To appreciate the magnitude of these statistics, let us do some simple calculations.

- There is a period of 650 years from AD 950 to 1600, and a population increase of 250 million people. This gives us an approximate rate (we will assume the earth's population growth to be a linear function) of an increase of about 384,615 humans per year.
- There is a period of 407 years from 1600 to 2007, and a population increase of 5.5 billion people. This gives us an approximate rate (once again assuming the earth's pop. growth to be a linear function) of an increase of about 13,513,513 humans per year: over 10 times the population growth of AD 950-1600 in a period of time lesser by 243 years! An alarming growth, indeed!

To take another look at the situation, take these statistics:

In the year 1420, 300 years must pass before the population doubles. In the year 1720, 155 years must pass before the pop. doubles. In 1875, 86, and similarly in 1961 only a piddling 38. Our population is RAPIDLY doubling at a faster and faster rate.

Now, why does this matter?

The fact is, humans at their core are a sort of parasitic species. We're classified as mammals, yes, but unlike our fellow mammals, our almost any other animal in the kingdom, we do not create a balance with our environment, there is no equilibrium with our surroundings; instead, we settle in an area, dry up its resources, and move to another area when necessary. Whatever the cause of this may be, it is undeniably true; one only has to look at the world around us to see our devastating effects. The world is increasingly polluted, carbon emissions are through the roof which, if you don't buy global warming (even despite its acceptance in the world's scientific community) highly degrade the quality of the air we depend on to live, and we're running out of space. Our planet is simply running out of room, and this is where we link to the analogy of cancer.

Cancer, and other such viruses/parasites, as one knows, take a host, and feed off of that host. In the case of cancer, a cancerous cell lives in its human host and begins to destroy it from within if malignant. The problem is that the human body is not ever expansive or infinite, it is quite the opposite; finite, just as our planet is. So, once the cancer destroys its host, the host dies. We inhabit our planet and drain its resources for sustenance, and once we destroy one area, we move to the next. Similar to the analogy I just made? Very. So what happens when we "use up" our planet? The same as a human host, naturally; it dies. And so will happen to earth if action is not taken.

Thus I stand resolved in this debate that all of humanity should be wiped out from existence, whether through weapons, voluntary global suicide, or any other action necessary. =D
dulinl

Con

dulinl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
IamMe90

Pro

Opponent forfeited so just extend ma' whole first speech. Humans suck, must die, etc etc

Also note that I don't actually support the extinction of all humans really, I just find it to be a rather fun topic to debate.
dulinl

Con

dulinl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
IamMe90

Pro

IamMe90 forfeited this round.
dulinl

Con

dulinl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by iluvdb8 9 years ago
iluvdb8
i agree that the instigator must win this debate, since he was the only one who posted a comment...srry dulinl
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
I agree with some of what pro was saying, but I voted for him simply because he actually...what's the word...posted.
Posted by IamMe90 9 years ago
IamMe90
Yeah, not gonna bother with a speech haha.
Posted by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Www.Dieoff.com

The argument is that we should not reproduce.
Deep Ecology is a better choose, w/e neg gave up.
Aff Ballet.
Posted by IamMe90 9 years ago
IamMe90
Perhaps, but I had actually planned to argue that point (that we should merely reduce population) in case my opponent brought it up... but maybe I'll get to that later.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Well, while I do fundamentally agree with the proposition that man is a parasite, we are not a virus to Earth. Earth is a floating rock. We are a threat to the life on Earth. This planet will get along fine without us, birds, grass, air, or water. The life that inhabits it however, will eventually be destroyed. I don't fully think that man must be annihilated, but rather we should reduce the overall population to an acceptable level, and then find a way that we can survive without doing damage to the rest of our carbon based neighbors.
Posted by IamMe90 9 years ago
IamMe90
Yeah, dude, once the revolution gets on its feet you know I'll be there. B)

Hahahaha
Posted by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
Set an example, big guy! Start with yourself! The rest of us will follow suit...maybe.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iluvdb8 9 years ago
iluvdb8
IamMe90dulinlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
IamMe90dulinlTied
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 
Vote Placed by EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
IamMe90dulinlTied
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