Humans are better than animals
Debate Rounds (5)
Humans are a species that has adapted to their environment very well in the last 100,000 years. This means that as much as nature has thrown at us during ice ages, floods, famine, disease, heat, cold, and all other kinds of disasters, humans have come out on top every time. We have evolved to be much more intelligent in respect to language, conceptual thinking, perceptual thinking, insight, and mathematics. Rational thinking is strictly human, all other animals have varying levels of instinct and lower levels of perception. Even gorillas, whose brain patterns and development is close to humans, have not been able to construct most anything. Gorillas have not linked their logical side to their instinctual side, thus any similarity to humans is unpractical.
All other animals are even lower in development and utilization of the environment than humans. Both objectively and subjectively, humans own this planet. The term "best" can be defined by the most utilized, practical talents among the creatures of the animal kingdom. For example, it doesn't matter in the slightest that dolphins are able to communicate well, because, in this moment in time they have failed to construct walls, housing, tools, or any other useful piece. This is why "man-made" is a term used for pretty much anything that is "made" by a living organism. Of course, ants, termites, and bees are close to humans in their social skills and developmental skills and thus could be said to be closer to humans than apes. However, our immense size (relative to smart insects) enables us to construct irrigation systems, mining and drilling operations, controlled fire, and most importantly, agriculture. These examples of utilization of the environment are absolutely impossible for creatures of insect size. Thus, the most important things in human life are strictly human.
The breaking free of "need" is an achievement of humanity. As humans, we do not live on the brink of starvation, fighting predators to survive just another day. We are more profoundly adapt to our environment than other animals. With such ancient inventions as knives, wheels, clothing, fire, farming, and buildings, we are able to set aside the limited time in the day for "play". However, as smart beings, we use this extra time to reinvest in our welfare. We invent, capitalize, work, and trade as much as we can. With higher and higher returns in the standard of living, human beings have lifted from the mud and are the sole creature to have reached the stars.
First off I will refute my opponent's points and then present my own.
My opponent has said that Earth has thrown so much at the human race and we have survived. Well, obviously, tons of other species have too. Humans have been on Earth a fraction of the time so many other species have. He also said that we have the power of rational thinking and advancement. But the question here is: Are the human's advancements actually good to the common good? No, actually, if you look at the facts a lot of them aren't. The human race may only have another couple decades or so until the Earth crumbles to global warming.  Is it good that we single handedly DESTROYED billions of years of progress to produce life forms as they are today? Is the iPhone 6 really better than the commonwealth of everything on Earth? My opponent was even arrogant enough to say that we own this planet. Like I said earlier, we've only been around a couple million years and using that time, we've destroyed this planet. He said that it doesn't matter that dolphins have higher thinking skills because they haven't been able to build houses. News flash: Dolphins are underwater. They don't actually need to build houses. He finally said that "we do not live on the brink of starvation, fighting predators to survive just another day." Well, look at the news, my friend. Many humans do. "We invent, capitalize, work and trade as much as we can." Many other species are actually very advanced. Take the komodo dragon. They hunt their prey in such an advanced way, they have an animal lying around to munch on for months. They chase after it for a little bit, bite it, and then simply wait. Their saliva contains more than 50 different types of bacteria.  You do NOT want to get that stuff into your bloodstream. After so little, they come home with a massive hunk of meat that, like I said earlier, covers their food needs for months.
Now I would like to present my arguments:
1-Humans don't know when to stop:
Like I said earlier, humans have pretty much screwed everything up. Even though humans created new stuff we DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP! All these other species have survived and thrived for twice or three times the time we have. Yet, they haven't destroyed the Earth in every possible way. Additionally, we didn't even realize what was going on until the 1970s. 
2-Humans are the most death-obsessed race:
True, life is not all butterflies and rainbows. But humans have taken this to the next level. We have definitely invented one thing: war. Have you ever heard of a war between two groups of animals? Of course not. That's because they are not as obsessed with death and destruction as the human race. In fact, no animal has ever killed another animal of its own species for reasons other than cannibalism on purpose. Additionally, no other species constructs such elaborate ways to create mass genocide. I did mention the advanced tactics of the Komodo dragon earlier, but does this compare to the myriad of work done on creating nuclear missiles, or mastering the idea of radioactivity so that we can use it to destroy a city?
themightyindividual forfeited this round.
To correct my opponents reasoning, "humans' advanced thinking does not benefit the common good." Whether humans' ability to think clearly and rationally is objectively great, there is no "common good" when it comes to inter-species contact. If you have ever watched the PBS program "Nature", you know that it is usually a zero-sum game when it comes to survival. Our skills are good for US and that is what matters. My opponent also said, "the Earth will crumble to global warming in a couple decades", which is completely null and void because global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age 14,000 years ago. I will not debate whether global warming is a real threat (or as real as eco-freaks make it out to be), nor if it is humans' fault- that is not the purpose of this debate (however, for the record, human beings are innocent in the climate change theory). My opponent then went further, "we single handedly destroyed billions of years of progress to produce life forms as they are today". Now, the term "progress" was used very, very loosely here. Progress as in "the evolution and random turn of events that resulted in the current state of things"? If that is what you mean, then what "we" have done is merely played our part in evolution- the weak are trampled and the strong go on to victory. It may seem wrong to justify it like that but be REALISTIC, human beings are a species like all others that is fighting against all odds for survival, we just happened to be WINNING, sorry about that.
Environmentalists and the irrationalists like them enjoy weighing the benefit of one INDIVIDUAL thing against the burden of the entire COLLECTIVE thing (as in, "is the iPhone 6 really better than the commonwealth of everything?"). This can get annoying to rational people, so allow me to turn the tables. Is the entire production of everything that supports BILLIONS of people all over the world that has lasted throughout human history and has benefited countless people just like your self better than preserving a certain sub-species of cheetahs?
Also, my opponent said that "in a couple million years, we've destroyed this planet" as a rebuttal to my statement that "we own this planet". I was speaking metaphorically, as in our immense power over the planet, and my opponent took this literally and came up with an even DUMBER statement: "we've destroyed the planet". Really? We've destroyed it? Because when I look around, I see people shopping at supermarkets and living in heated, lighted homes and working with easy tasks instead of hunting for buffalo. I see barren land (objectively, of course) being transformed into neighborhoods that help families and individuals live lives that the kings of 500 years ago (before mass pollution) could never dream of.
Then my opponent said something so hypocritical, and really gave his debate away: "Many humans do live on the brink of starvation, fighting predators to survive another day". My opponent advocates environmentalism, which supports only those who live in such a way; you outlined a global tragedy that can only be solved by human beings who do NOT support environmentalism. When mining and manufacturing companies move into impoverished villages, they pay off the landowners and villagers and often build houses worth much more in order to give the villagers a place to live. Environmentalists constantly try to stop this with lawsuits. By your logic, all people should live like that.
You said that humans invented war. In a strong sense of the word, yes, you are correct. Yet, does this not stem from a purpose? Ideas. People have ideas, sometimes political or religious. These ideas have gotten us very far, indeed. Sometimes, however, people have conflicting ideas and one of them wants to force his ideas on the other. This results in a war. You have proven yourself wrong, by admitting that humans are the only species that have ideas to fight about.
Most bad things that have been done by humans (such as genocide) have been done by irrationalists (like yourself). Collectivism, communism, subjectivism, environmentalism, nationalism, racism, are all things that cause wars and devalue man. All of these things fall under the category of irrationalism, they are forms of philosophy that the Nazis follow.
The bad deeds of a few should not reflect poorly on the good done by everyone else. However, you are a collectivist and believe that humans, plants, animals, sand, and communists are all the same in terms of rights. There is no debating here.
I will go out of this round providing some extra reasons to vote for my side. First, humans are the only mammal incapable of making their own vitamin C, which actually caused Ebola in Africa. Ebola circled around animals such as monkeys in Africa for a long time without harming them, but a human got it and started this whole Ebola epidemic. Finally, humans are animals too. We belong to the Animalia Kingdom.
I have indisputably won this debate.
When I said that I will not debate global warming, I meant right here, right now. In a separate debate, I would debate that. I do not "support" war, but I (unlike my opponent) understand that it is the bad side of something inherently good, ideas. My opponent also keeps bringing up the iPhone 6, as if that is a major source of environmental pollution. Maybe you should ask, "do we need electricity?" not "do we need the iPhone 6?". I realize that humans ARE apart of the animal kingdom, this debate's topic (as I specified) is whether humans are the BEST in the animal kingdom.
Obviously, my opponent sees human beings as the sole source of win-lose environmental change; this would mean that other species do not run each other "out of business". I am clearly the rationalist in this debate.
My opponent has not responded to many of my points and I have responded effectively to all of his. I have clearly and inevitably won this debate.
I know for sure that my opponent will next ride over that statement, saying that it is "foolish" and "absurd". All environmentalists do. However, I ask you this: if my opponent considers building a farm a form of net destruction (as he stated), he must consider trees and "the millions of different life forms inside them" vastly more important than human beings like you and me.
This kind of thinking- that humans are equal to all life forms- engenders questions of the limits of "rights". In other words, does the ebola virus have the same right to exist as a human being? Obviously, common sense would dictate not. But, if you follow my opponent's reason to it's logical conclusion, a human has no right to murder a virus! This kind of nonsense is what happens if you take environmentalism too far; but honestly, name something in history that wasn't taken too far. This line of thinking is evil, it implies that we are not more evolved than the lower animals, ad thus have no right to act as a dominant species.
My opponent keeps bringing up guns, murder, genocide, and war. Obviously, he is preoccupied with the bad parts of human life (as if the possession of reason has proved to be a net loss). If you consider how he points to the evils done by a few men, and blames them on the entire species, you can tell he has no chance of being correct in his argument. He skipped over my point that "the iPhone 6 is not a main source of pollution", clearly to avoid questioning our need for energy and food and shelter and paper and all other things we use everyday. If my opponent questioned our need for those most essential things, he would most definitely lose this lose this debate. Of course, the fifth amendment does protect you from admitting self-incriminating evidence!
1-Humans don't know when to stop:
My opponent has mainly focused on this argument, but still has not proven it wrong. As you will see if you scroll through this page, humans have, yes, destroyed the Earth. My opponent "refuses to debate global warming," but that's OK, because there are so many other examples I've shown throughout this debate: extinction, deforestation, and so on.
2-Humans are the most death-obsessed race:
My opponent mentioned this once to partially agree with it. He used a weak refutation that war was about ideas, but there are other ways to prove an idea, and if you can kill more people than the other guy, that doesn't mean you're right. No other species has killed another of its own species purposefully for reasons other than cannibalism.
Now, a couple more reasons I have provided throughout:
Humans are the only mammal incapable of making their own vitamin C, the cat vs. criminal example (a criminal is not better than a cat, is it? A cat may not have ever done anything bad, but a criminal sure has. That's why he's a criminal. The cat is better than the criminal), and weighing on scope (more animals than humans).
My opponent has failed to refute any of my points while I have effectively refuted all of his. I have obviously and indisputably won this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years 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:||4||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con, because Pro Forfeited a round, but I found Pro's arguments to be better and more thoughtful than Cons, so Arguments to Pro. I saw A few Grammar Mistakes by Con so S and P to Pro, and since I believe only Con used sources so Sources to Con.
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.