The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Humans main reason for existence is to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity.

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: 11/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,649 times Debate No: 10282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




What are we, mere mortals on a heavenly earth capable of producing and destroying life? What does this earth, our existence and humanity ask of us? What are we doing here? What is our purpose?
The answer is that we are a tool, a part of the human race, merely one of the species trying to keep us going. No race has or ever will be created that has not got the will to survive, although within a race there may be beings willing to die. However when it come down to survival the real decision is inevitable. If one species has to be destroyed, we will make sure that we are the ones still alive at the end. Our genes won't let us decide an other way. So if we don't kill every last opposing species and if they can, they will kill every last one of us.
Therefore all humanity asks of you, me and the rest of mankind is one simple request. Humanity does not ask anyone to be happy or content, but merely asks you to be brilliant on its behalf. This is to keep all humanity alive Survival first, then happiness as you can manage it.
To survive we depend on humanity as a whole, like a body, the ultimate tool. Every now and then, the body is groomed; week ones are removed and otherwise execs individuals are trimmed, and removed from existence For example, in the world wars, famines and other natural disasters. The tool keeps itself neat and useful at all times. And as a result we wait constantly for humanity to produce a creature capable of saving the humans from our own mistakes and self destruction.
What we need is a Perils or a Demosthenes. Someone who sees that there are times when the world is rearranging itself and at times like these, the right words can change the world. The only problem with Perils and Demosthenes is that they ruined Athens twice. We need a Lenin, Bismarck, a Tomas Paine or a Ben Franklin. Someone who spots when the world is in a flux, and at that moment what matters is the right voice, in the right place, at the right time and you can move the world.
Humanities job is to produce a Napoleon, an Alexander, except that Napoleon lost in the end and Alexander flamed out. WE need a Julius Cease, except that he made himself dictator and died for it. Humanities job is to produce such a creature and all the men and women this creature needs to help them. For if there is no one and a situation does come up, humanity will be woefully unprepared. It wouldn't't necessarily be the world at stake but humanity and then as far as the rest of the biosphere is concerned we could be wiped from the planet and everything would adjust and would get on with the next step in evolution.
We are now straining and straining to give birth to geniuses and we have done so before. The person who made the wheel, who discovered the light bulb, the one who made a town, a city!
To put it bluntly, human beings are free, except when humanity needs them. We may all do despicable things, but if humans survive we have been a good tool, because we are all tools which the others use for, the greater good, to help us all survive.
Take what pleasure you can from living, but survival always will and does come first. Winning, survival, is everything, because without it, there is nothing.


Thanks, Pro, for the debate.

Pro's Arguments:

1. If one species has to be destroyed, it won't be us (humans).
2. Humanity doesn't ask us to be happy, but brilliant.
3. Wars and famine exist to weed out the weak.
4. Humanity needs a strong leader who will change the world.
.: Winning and survival are everything.

First and foremost, you'll notice that none of these contentions support the resolution.


1. Pro contends that out of all of earth's species, humans would not be the ones to be destroyed in the future. However, that is not necessarily true. One scenario is that human evolution slows down, which many academics feel is the case - at least in the sense of complex brain genes [1] and some mutation or change happens within the next billion-trillion years that speeds up the evolution of another species excessively. In other words, although it's unlikely, the world may experience some sort of phenomenon that leads another species to surpass human beings. In that case, humanity may or may not be destroyed. If you think that's too unlikely to be considered, think of it being possible in this more likely scneario: some sort of disease or natural disaster takes place that humanity can't withstand. Another species may or may not be able to survive and evolve. In that case, Pro's contention is false.

2. In saying that humanity doesn't ask us to be happy but brilliant, it seems as if Pro is asserting that he's God or an equivalent who knows the answer to the eternal question: Why are we here? Indeed, even if the answer is "to perpetuate" as would be Pro's reply, there really s no answer to the "But why?" that follows. Moreover, I would argue that there are a lot of people whose purpose in life is not to be brilliant. For instance, what about the existentialists who believe that we choose our own purpose or that we define our own meaning? Either way, this point fails.

3. I disagree that wars and famines exist to weed out the weak. Things like famine could be an accident - not for a specific purpose. A lot of times, humanity cannot control the forces of nature that make certain things exist, like famine. Or, certain things may be suited to survive in particular scenarios, and it might not be the brilliant. For instance, a cactus would be more likely to survive than I would in a situation where there was no water. Does that make the cactus smarter than I? No. Further, wars don't exist to weed out the weak. Wars are the result of various things; greed, terror, fear, some think divine intervention, etc. A lot of times it is the brilliant who die. Not only the better survive.

4. What does having a strong leader have to do with this, really? Pro asserts that we need a Julius Ceaser or even Lenin to rule over and preside; however, like his other contentions, this really doesn't explain why the survival of humanity is the reason for existence. Plus, as Pro himself has admitted, some leaders are evil and weak and could actually lead to humanity's demise.

.: Winning and Survival are Everything

So how does Pro reach this conclusion? I've disputed all of his contentions.

My arguments are as follows:

1. The perpetuation of mankind is not an ethical necessity.
2. The perpetuation of mankind is not a moral necessity.
3. The perpetuation of mankind is not a teleological necessity.
.: Humans main reason for existence is not to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity.

One cannot argue that humanity must perpetuate for ethical reasons. Whether something was ethical or not would only matter to us if humans existed in the first place. So, this is a circular argument. Further, morality implies that there are values to uphold (or that can be violated). Once again, without humanity existing in the first place, no values would exist to be either upheld or violated. So again, this is another circular argument. "The meaning we impute to our lives comes from our own values and feelings, and there's no reason to bemoan the fact that either our lives or the life of our species may or may not continue after a certain point" [2].

In short, Pro has not explained WHY the main reason for human existence is to perpetuate the survival of humanity. Plus, Pro hasn't proven that this necessarily WILL be the case via science. On the contrary, I've proven that while life may indeed be the ultimate value (the objectivist metaphysical belief, which I agree with), the fact remains that there's no value which inherently states that the survival of all of humanity is the ultimate value and why, or explains how this is feasible. I agree that we can and maybe should try; however, acknowledge that this may or may not be possible, and even if something happens that destroys humanity, we are still "at the top of the food chain" in terms of evolution and whatnot. And with that said, I'll turn the argument back over to Pro.

Debate Round No. 1


Sorry, I have done pretty rubbish so far; I only just started this debating lark, excuses.

When one looks back at human history one sees strong leaders, people who changed the world. People who were smart, brilliant, and clever, people like Lenin or Bismarck someone who is clever and smart so that they can keep humanity from dieing out. These people, when they have been selected are tools; tools to keep humanity alive.
Take an example like one of your high school teachers. They teach you so that you can later teach others. They are a tool, as am I and as are you. Although you may not have a great role in aiding the survival of humanity you had a role. Maybe one of your friends that you taught an important lesson is now showing this same lesson to a leader who is about to make a life and death choice for someone. Because whoever is out there, there is one person who is responsible for something and it is humanities job to produce such a creature and all the men and women this creature needs to help them.
In the Second World War, Europe experienced one of the coldest winters ever. Many, the weaker people, died. On the battle fields the weak died from all sorts of diseases. However, the strong survived, and lived to become important, to aid the survival of humanity.
Imagine a scenario, humans are no longer the smartest creatures on the planet, and we as a species are in danger of becoming extinct, we would join together and try with all our might to stay alive. We have seen it in cases within the human race. An example is in the holocaust, where the Jewish population was the species trying to stay alive. They joined together and within many of the camps there were the smart, the ones who didn't attract attention and the ones who were strong; brilliant. These were the ones who survived and were able to bring others back with them.
Humans main reason for living is to fulfil that role, the role of helping, and aiding others to live. Humans reason for being alive is to continue on our race and join in the goal for creating a world we can live in. Each human is a tool for aiding this goal and so by I end this.


Thanks, Pro, for your rebuttal... But I'm afraid you haven't actually negated any of my points. Let's take a look at your R2 premises:

1. People are tools to perpetuate humanity (example: teachers and political leaders)
2. Weak people died from illness, cold or disease during WWII winters
3. If humans were becoming extinct, they'd try to stay alive
4. Humans exist to help others

While these are things that may be true (I'd argue that not all of them are, though we didn't get there yet) - they do nothing to support the resolution. For instance, point 1 just repeats the resolution. Point 2 was actually one of MY contentions (so supports the Con side). As I said in the last round, Pro's argument that only the strong survive is not always true... because there are cases where things like disease and famine prevail, meaning sometimes the stronger or smarter people don't make it. Pro's point 3 claims that humans would try to stay alive if they were becoming extinct and I would tend to agree with this; however, for a much different reason than what Pro's 4th point claims: that humans exist to help other people. On the contrary, I'd argue that humans exist to help themselves.

I will take the objectivist metaphysical approach to this debate and say that one's life is of utmost important value, because it is the tool through which they perpetuate the rest of their values. As such, it makes sense that one would want to survive thereby making Pro's resolution seemingly true. However, to LIVE is not the inherent value: to perpetuate the value system is. So, if for instance people decided that human existence was detrimental (for whatever reason), then humans may wish NOT to survive. As I pointed out in the last round, there is no ethical, moral or teleological necessity mandating that humans perpetuate. We only do so because it is n our individual best interest. If it stopped being in our best interest, or if some other value took precedent over furthering our species (which I think is possible but improbable), then the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2


basketball_duncker forfeited this round.


Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited her last round. I'd like to extend my arguments, in which case my premises haven't been refuted (but hers has). I'd like to thank Pro for the debate ~ maybe I'll catch ya around in another debate. Thanks, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Obtuse evo psych argument? Either that or, as time goes on we get better at doing stuff. :P
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
I'm confused by PRO's argument o.O
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
FYI My arguments is not supposed to represent a logical syllogism; just my way of showing what the arguments and conclusion are. Probably shouldn't have posted it like that. Oh wellz.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07