Humans are the new T-Rex
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept your debate and await the affirmative case.
Contention 1: Vegetarians
There are a lot of vegetarians in the world. It is extremely difficult to call an exact number to this figure but in India there are an estimated 400 million vegetarians (about 1/3 of the population)! How do you propose that people will abandon their vegetarian traditions to eat everything and everybody on the planet.
Vegetarianism is also part of many people's religions and abandoning these desires would be extremely difficult for them to do. It is often interpreted that Hindus should be vegetarians. It is a known fact that Jainism advocates vegetarianism. Buddhists believe in removing material pleasures and thus removing suffering. They are very strongly against the concept of suffering and by killing and eating animals they are completely abandoning their faiths and traditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org... and religion
Contention 2: Pasifists
Pasifism is the objection to war, violence and cruelty. By killing and eating everything and everyone we are violating the opposition to violence and cruelty. Pasifists will not do this and as a result this group of people will also not partake in this. A related term is ahimsa (to do no harm), which is a philosophy in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism. You are (again) requesting that these people violate their religions that they believe so strongly about.
This also violates the worlds biggest religions. Islam and Christianity!
In Christianity, Jesus Christ's injunction to "love your enemies" and asking for forgiveness for his crucifiers "for they know not what they do" have been interpreted as calling for pacifism.
In Islam a similar principle exists since they also believe that Jesus was a Prophet for their religion - but not the son of God. Jesus was considered to be a Muslim not a Christian or a Jew as people most commonly associate Jesus with.
Jews also keep a similar position on this topic:
"The attitude of Jews toward pacifism, as with most other aspects of religion, is heavily influenced by the Holocaust which was a program of Nazi Germany to murder every man, woman and child who was Jewish as well as people of other religions who had a Jewish grandparent. As a result, some six million people were exterminated by various means because the Nazis considered them Jews and therefore unworthy of life. In hindsight, there were opportunities for a number of years to defeat Nazi Germany before it could build a military force strong enough to capture and kill most of the Jews of Europe."
They do believe in peace, primarily due to the atrocities of the Holocaust (as described in the quote above).
The study of metamorphisis into animals (or in this case dinosaurs) is referred to as Therianthropy which is referred to the concept of humans turning into animals or vice versa. This is scientifically disproven and considered to be only the works of myths and legends. I have shown through strong and reliable evidence that not everyone will turn into T-Rex's and eat everyone. It is part of my opponent's burden to prove that this is scientifically possible and if they are unable to prove this then my burden is met and there's is not.
Thank you for reading and please Vote Con!
Humans are still animals and will act like animals when they are hungry enough. Civilization as we know it, is only possible when there is a plentiful supply of food. Once the supply of food is cut off, humans will turn into horrible beasts and stalk one-another until there are no humans left on planet Earth.
The study of metamorphism has nothing to do with this topic. I am not proposing that humans will physically turn into dinosaurs or any other beast. The beast or animal nature of humans is inherent to our DNA and will be released when no other options are available.
The movie -' Lord of the Flies' is a demonstration of how humans will act when the food supply runs short.
Okay, so my opponent makes a number of assumptions about my case. Firstly, it is not only Muslims, Christians and vegetarians. It is the Muslims, Christians, vegetarians, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Pacifists. Also, you are also assuming that the people that do not meet this criteria will want to eat everything including humans themselves.
In regards to the reunning out of our fossil fuels. The solution is simple. In fact there are many viable solutions to our current situation.
"Wind energy or wind power is extracted from air flow using wind turbines or sails to produce mechanical or electrical energy. Windmills are used for their mechanicalpower, windpumps for water pumping, and sails to propel ships."
"Solar power is the conversion of sunlight intoelectricity, either directly using photovoltaics (PV), or indirectly using concentrated solar power (CSP). Concentrated solar powersystems use lenses or mirrors and tracking systems to focus a large area of sunlight into a small beam."
"Wave power is the transport of energy by ocean surface waves, and the capture of that energy to do useful work – for example, electricity generation, water desalination, or the pumping of water (into reservoirs). A machine able to exploit wave power is generally known as a wave energy converter (WEC)."
These are just some of the ways that we can overcome the problems of the lack of fossil fuels. It still bewildering how my opponent's argument even fits in with the resolution. Due to the lack of fossil fuels we may have difficulties to overcome however this does not effect food in any direct way. My opponent will have to explain for this argument to have any credibility on its own.
I still fail to understand how people will starve to death if they do not eat meat. There are currently 400 million vegetarians in India alone as stated in my contentions. This statistic could possibly be higher and some sources suggest that there are 500 million vegetarians in India alone and they are surving and living without having to become cannibals and abandon their beliefs in regards to meat.
The movie, Lord of The Flies is a fictional story that is not real. It is a movie and a book and should not be considered to be anything more than this.
It is part of my opponent's burden to show me why the nature of animals is in our DNA, without sources or evidence to support this claim, it is mitigtated to a mere assertion. For these reasons, vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 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: This debate ended up being a debate in regards to the resolution. Pro claimed that the resolution wasn't literally in regards to metamorphosis. The problem was that pro made very literal references and links between humans and T Rex's. For example, humans eating everything. It is not enough for one to assert that their has been a resolutional misunderstanding in the final round of the debate. This should have been clarified within the resolution or r1 so that cons acceptance would have necessitated his acceptance to pros interpretation. Since this was used to dismiss the main part of cons argument it result in pro losing the arguments points for an insufficient rebuttal to the framework by which cons case was structured by. Con refuted every point made by con directly whilst the remainder of pros rebuttals referenced to the lack of fossil fuels but failed to link this in with the resolution and the topic being discussed. Due to this I vote 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.