The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
InsaneSanity
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Humans are vermin.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 82928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

"vermin.
1.
noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats.
" [1].

Human "
noun
5.
a human being.
"[2].

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
InsaneSanity

Con

Hello, I hope we will have a good debate! I think that both sides should have to post proof, rather than simply refute the other side's proof. Just to clarify.

Anyway, here is my first argument.

I will admit that humans are capable of horrendous things, but just because often we do doesn't mean that we are vermin. Could vermin that have no good value experience the love, the joy, the friendship that humans do? I do not think so.

While some humans are worthy of the term vermin, not all of us, and I would even go so far as to say most of us, are not. Take Mother Teresa as an example. Even if you aren't Christian, you cannot deny that she was a good person, she helped the poor and was very loving to all. Or J.K. Rowling, who made billions and donated large parts of it to charity. Or 20/20/20, which changes the entire LIVES of people by performing a cheap surgery in western terms of $300 on people in third world countries who could never afford it that restores the eyesight of the blind.

These are only a few examples, and who do a specific kind of good, but I think that these people alone can prove that not all humans are vermin. If we were all vermin, then why would so many people want to take refugees into Canada? Or why would anyone care about the people who died in 9/11 or the recent bombing in Paris?

Although some humans must be vermin to cause these things, the response of the majority saves the name of humanity in general from being vermin. And everyone is mean to someone or some animal at some point, but most decent people would feel bad at some point after doing so and seek redemption.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Con makes an interesting argument. Focusing on a word within the definition of vermin is collectively.

Collectively " 1.
formed by collection.
2.
forming a whole; combined:
the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries.
3.
of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together:
the collective wishes of the membership.
4.
organized according to the principles of collectivism:
a collective farm.
" [3].

That being said it seems best to take the whole of humanity. The good, the bad, and the somewhere in between and mix them all together. Does that not seem the fairest way?

There are many human heroes. All the saints and other excellent people, Martin Luther King, Rachael Carson, and so forth. There is too many to name. Then there are the villains, Alexander the Great, and most extremely powerful men and woman. Again, too many to mention.

Then, there are the everyday people who rarely get mentioned at all in history books. Most people will agree that what defines a person is his or her deeds. What has humanity done for other species? What actions has humans done to make sure that they don't act as vermin do towards the rest of the planet?

Also how closely do humans fit the definition of vermin? ""vermin.
1.
noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats.
" [1]."

Humans occur commonly and are most definitely difficult to control. World population is over 7.3 billion people.[4]. How about noxious, objectionable, and disgusting? Here's a source for disgusting [5].

What about noxious? A noxious weed is often used to label especially invasive and destructive weeds. "'Noxious weed' is the traditional, legal term for any invasive, non-native plant that threatens agricultural crops, local ecosystems or fish and wildlife habitat. " [6].

Hmmm threatens wildlife habitat, that sounds like humans.

How about objectionable? Objectionable "causing or tending to cause an objection, disapproval, or protest. " [7].

Since humans tend to be tolerant of each others behaviors, its best to focus on how humans treat other sentient beings. If you ever watch a video on factory farming, the animals are definitely disapproving of the way they are treated. Factory farmed animals are protesting. Since 50 billion chickens are slaughtered each year, human's deeds seem to qualify as objectionable. [8].

"Could vermin that have no good value experience the love, the joy, the friendship that humans do? I do not think so." Con

Rats are sentient beings capable of joy and show friendship. "Helping a cagemate in need: empathy and pro-social behavior in rats" [9]. Rats are also considered vermin. Mother rats nurse their young, this is an expression of love.

Humans seem to qualify as vermin. The sheer number of humans over 7 billion. Demonstrating habits so disgusting that even other humans see these habits as disgusting. Showing noxious qualities towards Eco-systems and finally objectionable behavior via factory farming.

The only way humans are not like vermin is human's size. Considering that bacteria are the most common life form and humans are much larger compared to a bacteria. Vote Pro.

Links
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://www.worldometers.info...
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
6. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov...
7. http://dictionary.reference.com...
8. http://www.upc-online.org...
9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
InsaneSanity

Con

Sorry about the late response, I was being overwhelmed with homework.

I will start by countering your points directly, then the argument as a whole.

Yes, human population is extremely large. But that does not equate to difficult to control, as there have not been many attempts to control human population. The only place I can think of is China, where you cannot have more than one child, and that has not been going on long enough to decide whether it is difficult or not.

I do not think that we could on any place of the Earth except Antarctica be considered invasive or non-native, considering how long ago it was that we spread to the whole world. We have been around in most places long enough to see the fall and rise of species! Humans are the ones who MAKE the agricultural crops, so of course we are not a threat to agricultural crops, without us they wouldn't exist. That is half of the definition that does not apply to humans. Just because we are a threat to the environment does not make us noxious. Also we are starting to turn around our effects on the environment.

That page about the chickens is truly horrifying, but the chicken industry does not represent the whole of humanity. In fact, I think that most people I know would be horrified to hear that chickens are treated that way, I certainly didn't know that. But I think I'm going to have to call you out on a hasty generalization fallacy there. And although the chicken companies are not the only awful thing out there, a lot of it is kept secret to the majority of the population.

Also... the source you cited for disgusting was one of those internet lists that exaggerates so that they can have a better title. It meant disgusting in more of an unhealthy way than the way that the disgusting in vermin meant. Context must be applied here. The kind of disgusting that it meant in the definition for vermin is more of a repulsive in looks or deeds word.

Clearly the group that will have the largest impact on the collective is not the villains nor the heroes of the world, but the average layman as you have said. You asked "what actions have humans done to make sure they don't act as vermin to the rest of the planet". Most of the time, they don't even need to try hard. Except for during wars, instigated by powerful government leaders, so a small portion of the population, people are not invasive to anywhere as I have pointed out above. Most people don't damage agricultural crops either, unless they are a destructive minority.

As for objectionable, anyone could object to anything, and the average person is no more objectionable than average. If so, then the bar for all of humanity is set as high as these heroes that have been mentioned, and why would they be considered heroes for barely meeting the requirement to not be objectionable?

Many people in the world are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, and so the main threat to the environment are oil, coal, and natural gas companies. The daily needs of most people in the world are not what is causing environmental damage.

Going to the other usage of the term vermin, which people use in everyday conversation about someone being a horrible person. Except for people with mental disorders or people who were raised horribly, everyone has a basic concept of what is right and wrong, and generally tries to abide by that.

Humans are not noxious, disgusting, objectionable, or just horrible, and therefore are not vermin.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

No problem about the late reply.

"Yes, human population is extremely large. But that does not equate to difficult to control, as there have not been many attempts to control human population. The only place I can think of is China, where you cannot have more than one child, and that has not been going on long enough to decide whether it is difficult or not." Con

Claim: There have been many holocausts, yet humans seem to persevere.
Warrant:"Between 15th " 17th century, European settlers killed between 100 to 180 million Natives in Americana. Later, Europeans killed more than 80 million Africans in process of their Black slave trade.

In 1492, when Crusaders captured the last Muslim state in Spain, Garanada " they killed 3-5 million Muslims and 173,000 Jews as part of Inquisition." [9].

Impact: Humans are difficult to control.

Humans have also survived many natural disasters and plagues.

"I do not think that we could on any place of the Earth except Antarctica be considered invasive or non-native, considering how long ago it was that we spread to the whole world." Con

Let's look at chimpanzees and bonboo monkey. [10]. As you can see from the map bonboo monkey are limited to a very small portion of the globe. Chimpanzees live in more areas than bonboo monkey. [11]. Compare this to humans who span nearly every continent. Humans are incredibly invasive. By far the most invasive species known and therefore noxious.

"Also we are starting to turn around our effects on the environment." Con

You've seen an inconvenient truth right? Green house emissions keep rising and rising. Pro contends that Con's statement is a direct contradiction to the truth. Humans are damaging the environment faster than ever.

"I certainly didn't know that. But I think I'm going to have to call you out on a hasty generalization fallacy there." Con

Pigeon shooting, dog fighting, bull rodeos, pig wrestling, sea world, factory farming, the list goes on and on. [12]. Then there's the entire useless labels of cage-free and free range.

"Cage-free hens are subject to many of the cruelties inherent to battery cage systems. For instance, cage-free producers typically purchase hens from hatcheries, where male egg-type chickens are considered useless and killed at birth because they will not lay eggs and will not grow as large as chickens bred for meat. Hatcheries kill 260 million male chicks each year.
Just like caged hens, "cage-free" hens suffer de-beaking" [13].

"Also... the source you cited for disgusting was one of those internet lists that exaggerates so that they can have a better title. It meant disgusting in more of an unhealthy way than the way that the disgusting in vermin meant. Context must be applied here. The kind of disgusting that it meant in the definition for vermin is more of a repulsive in looks or deeds word." Con

Wouldn't the horrors of factory farming qualify as disgusting? Isn't there somebody at your school cafeteria who's deeds you would call disgusting?

"Most of the time, they don't even need to try hard. Except for during wars, instigated by powerful government leaders, so a small portion of the population, people are not invasive to anywhere as I have pointed out above. Most people don't damage agricultural crops either, unless they are a destructive minority." Con

How many electric cars do you see whizzing by, bicycles, and walking? CFL and incandescent light bulbs are still available for retail. Few houses use solar panels. People still eat meat, which isn't as energy efficient as vegan diets. People eat lots of packaged foods.

"Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change. " [14].

"As for objectionable, anyone could object to anything, and the average person is no more objectionable than average. If so, then the bar for all of humanity is set as high as these heroes that have been mentioned, and why would they be considered heroes for barely meeting the requirement to not be objectionable?" Con

There is some wisdom to your words, yet humans are causing mass objections. There are 50 billion chickens slaughtered annually. That's about 50 billion sentient beings protesting human's actions. Pro contends this qualifies humans as objectionable.

"Many people in the world are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, and so the main threat to the environment are oil, coal, and natural gas companies." Con

Trying and failing apparently. Just look at the green house emissions continuing to rise. The rate of extinction. Golf course lawns everywhere. In my neighborhood lawns are becoming more like gulf course like, not less. Who places the demand on the oil, coal, and natural gas companies? The average person does with his and her daily needs.

"Going to the other usage of the term vermin, which people use in everyday conversation about someone being a horrible person. Except for people with mental disorders or people who were raised horribly, everyone has a basic concept of what is right and wrong, and generally tries to abide by that." Con

So now your stating that factory farming is morally sound? That continuing to purchase factory farmed product fueling the industry is fine? Pro does not agree.

"Humans are not noxious, disgusting, objectionable, or just horrible, and therefore are not vermin." Con

Pro has just proven that humans are noxious, by invading many continents in unimaginable numbers. Disgusting via factory farming and habits at the cafeteria. Objectionable due to the sheer volume of chickens objecting to humans. Horrible due to mistreatment of animals. Only one conclusion can be made, humans are vermin. Vote Pro.

Thanks for the debate.

Links.
9. http://rehmat1.com...
10. https://www.worldwildlife.org...
11. http://www.allaboutwildlife.com...
12. http://www.cbsnews.com...
13. http://www.farmsanctuary.org...
14. http://www.pbs.org...
InsaneSanity

Con

InsaneSanity forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InsaneSanity 1 year ago
InsaneSanity
Oh shoot... I missed my chance for the last argument. That's annoying.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
True, humans are probably not going to consider their own race to be "noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control"... but an elephant might think about us that way.
Can something only be disgusting if *it's* disgusting to a human?
I think not, my friends, I think not :)

Revised from below.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
I mean yeah, humans are probably not going to consider their own race to be "noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, especially those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control"... but an elephant might think about us that way.
Can something only be disgusting if disgusting to a human?
I think not, my friends, I think not :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.