Humans should be made into Autotrophs
Hello consumer america.
In the form of an insipid argument, I will explain my position:
Here is the basic premise of my agreement:
P1. Homo sapiens are animals and heterotrophs.
P2. If homo sapiens could be some how made into autotrophs, it would have good effects.
P3. By P2, homo sapiens would cease to be animals.
P4. Homo sapiens would benefit.
C. Homo sapiens should be made into autotrophs.
Con must discern if homo sapiens being autotrophs is possible and argue against me.
Terms of the debate:
Start with a pompus remark when you are rebutting an argument/agreement.
Be snarky, it's polite.
You can not use the same font more than 2 rounds.
Your closing statement for each round must involve one or more of the following words:
Scallywag, masticate, mucilage, jabberwocky, catawampus, flabbergasted, miser, floccinaucinihilipilification, phallus impudicus, borborygmous, and epeolatry.
*The words must be used in a structured sentence.
*Failure to do the above should result in lose of conduct points.
Misquoting, fallacies, false information/dubious claims, unreliable information is not allowed.
You must adhere to the terms, no matter how ridiculous.
First round acceptance.
Here is my baby argeement!!
One reason I think humans should become autotrophs, is quite obvious:
Becoming an autotroph eliminates the necessity to ingest other organisms (or the natural products from them) for sustenance.
Benefits/Outcomes of this:
I am using everyone's least favorite font for this round of debate.
Actually, not entirely.
For starters, Humans cannot become autotrophs.
By definition, humans are heterotrophs, and if a human was made into an autotroph it would no longer be human. This should be obvious to even the most insipid of people, which is why I am surprised my opponent did not pick up on it.
So then humans would suffer needlessly under a horrible, cruel, and terrible reign of some alternate species that will dominate them.
As a human, I am opposed to that happening!
Furthermore, all the benefits my opponent posits are completely and utterly wrong, which does not surprise me in the slightest given my opponent's quite limited abilities.
I am flabbergasted that my opponent thinks becoming autotrophic is even a possibility. He has shown no evidence in favor of it being possible.
First off, I would like to, with the most utter disrespect, thank my opponent to the highest possible degree for bring up these important points.
"For starters, Humans cannot become autotrophs." ?
Very interesting point you have here, to bad its wrong.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
consisting of people: the human race.
of or pertaining to the social aspect of people: human affairs.
sympathetic; humane: a warmly human understanding.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or asrepresenting the human species: living conditions not fit forhuman beings; a very generous human being.
Biology . the usual major subdivision of a family or subfamilyin the classification of organisms, usually consisting of morethan one species.
Since Homo sapiens is just a species in the homo genus, if a new SPECIES of human arised that was autotrophs it would just mean there are two species in the genus of Homo.
There is another error, this is humans being made into autotrophs. That doesn't necessarily mean they will be what they were!!!
give certain properties to something;
produced by making, preparing, etc., in a particular way(often used in combination): well-made garments.
Expressing a change of state
So, I don't care if humans can't BE autotrophs, I only care if they can be made into autotrophs I don't care if they are STILL human afterwards.
As you can see, I already acknowledge your first point anyway:
"Human beings would possibly be a new life form/species or not humans at all!" - Arrogantly quoting myself!
"So then humans would suffer needlessly under a horrible, cruel, and terrible reign of some alternate species that will dominate them."
Actually, if there were any "humans" left then they would probably just be out numbered, depending on the scale the new humans dominated. To be honest, that's a completely fatuous theory for the scenario at hand.
The only difference from the new "humans" and the old would be how they obtain their energy necessary for subsisting.
If anything they would be pitied or seen as inferior, it would not necessarily be cruel.
"Human beings would become a different species, which would be bad for humans. That is not a benefit."
You see, it would be a benefit for the humans that became a new species! And the other humans would probably have more food resources since there would be less "humans" to use it.
"Killing other organisms is not an issue"
So what? Also I feel like that is just your opinion.
"The dependency would simply transfer to natural inorganic substances"
Yes, a more abundant resource.
"There's enough food to end world hunger right now. There's nothing to prove that sunlight and inorganic chemicals wouldn't be unequally distributed as food is now."
Wait, so are you implying people will unequally distribute the sun and easily accessible chemicals from the hungry?
"Actually, there would probably be more pollution to keep levels of CO2 high enough to use"
I don't know, CO2 is not the only inorganic substance, and it might not be a healthy diet.
"But then we would be in direct competition with other autotrophs, and the trees would probably get fed up with us and kill us all"
The other heterotrophs aren't getting fed up with, or at least killing us out.
And the other autotrophs are doing fine. I just think we would start thinking plants are cute and cuddly and start rooting them on leashes.
"This already is[sic]"
"I am flabbergasted that my opponent thinks becoming autotrophic is even a possibility. He has shown no evidence in favor of it being possible."
Well, we could genetically engineer ourselves to have plastid genes in our dna or to naturally obtain plastids and pass them on genetically.
This is could be possible with genetic engineering techniques on human zygotes and babies, although it may be a socially catawampus notion.
Don't worry baby, I don't bite.
First off, I would not like to thank my opponent for bringing up these uninteresting points.
Since my opponent said misquoting is not allowed and the only type of quoting I know how to do is misquoting, I will not be able to quote my opponent. My opponent wrote a bunch of fancy stuff about humans that I didn't even read because it was boring. However, I'm still sure my opponent is wrong. If a Homo Erectus walked up to you, would you call it human? No, you wouldn't (I can read minds). Therefore, my opponent is wrong. Although I'm making a dubious claim here, I'm sure it wouldn't feel good to be an inferior species. The regular old Homo Sapiens would not have a good time being inferior. Trust me, I am an Inferiorologist. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE INFERIOR?
I'm probably not supposed to misquote myself either, but that's a risk I'm more willing to take.
"Not not killing other organisms is not not not an issue" - Me (stutter)
This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Not killing other organisms being beneficial is my opponent's opinion. No proof was provided for my opponent's stance.
"The dependence would not not simply transfer to ununnatural inorganic substances" - Me again
My opponent assets these are more abundant. Again, no proof is provided. There are a lot of humans.
Not the sun, but these "easily accessible chemicals" will become significantly less easy to access once they become a food supply. If you consider the population of the world (roughly 7 billion according to the US Census Board) and the energy they need (about 2000 calories a day) then you see that humans ought to use roughly 14000000000000 calories per day. Converted to kJ, humans use roughly 58,576,000,000 kJ per day. That's a lot. We'll deplete anything we use a food source simply because there are so many of us and not many things get the chance to eat us. Then we'll cause Global Cooling by eating all the CO2, and the earth will fall into another Ice Age: The Movie. Hopefully, my opponent has been so bemused by my psuedoscience that it will not be able to respond.
If my opponent thinks other heterotrophs aren't getting fed up with us, it has never walked through a jungle. The other autotrophs have had a lot of time to bond with each other, and at this point they know they're stuck with each other. They wouldn't take so kindly to newcomers. It's like an exclusive club. Heterotrophs hate us too, but unfortunately we're too strong for them. In fact, everything hates us. It's best not to make them hate us more.
"This already is" - Me
My opponent tried to intimidate me by putting [sic] after my quote. However, I will not fall for its fearmongering tactics. A vote for Con is a vote for freedom. Cooking already is a form of art, and eating already is for pleasure and nutrients. I think the burden is on my opponent to prove this is not already so, seeing as my opponent asserted this first.
From my opponent's own source "It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way... Our digestive tract just chews all that stuff up - the chloroplasts and the DNA". The only conclusion I can draw from this is that my opponent is a treacherous slug attempting to undermine humanity by trying to convince us to become autotrophs when we cannot. A vote for Con is a vote for humans.
I assert my opponent's last line is fabrication. I am certain that my opponent bites, and I challenge it to prove otherwise.
Seriously, do you really want humans to join the ranks of the mucilage producing? No, of course you don't.
I enjoyed my opponents well thought and formulate fallacious arguments! But I refuse to consider them and think he should bow down to me.
"Since my opponent said misquoting is not allowed and the only type of quoting I know how to do is misquoting, I will not be able to quote my opponent. My opponent wrote a bunch of fancy stuff about humans that I didn't even read because it was boring. However, I'm still sure my opponent is wrong. If a Homo Erectus walked up to you, would you call it human? No, you wouldn't (I can read minds). Therefore, my opponent is wrong. Although I'm making a dubious claim here, I'm sure it wouldn't feel good to be an inferior species. The regular old Homo Sapiens would not have a good time being inferior. Trust me, I am an Inferiorologist. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE INFERIOR?"
I must admit, you may be correct, but I probably would call a Homo Erectus a human, especially now that I have considered the broader definition of the word. Also, I'm sorry about my boring talk, it is just my agenda to make them more boring to make reading unfun.
As for humans being inferior...
I did say homo sapiens would mayhaps be seen as inferior by the new humans (or whatever).
But that would only be the new humans perspective, and that's because we humans already have this mindset.
We think our species is superior to others, its not necessarily true. And humans already see other humans as inferior because of multiple reasons, like disabilities, age, and sex. You can't explain that. (well maybe you can)
So the homo sapiens would not be inferior, because inferior is not objective.
"I'm probably not supposed to misquote myself either, but that's a risk I'm more willing to take."
Okay, well you can't misquote yourself either, but I will ignore it and leave it for the voters to decide.
"This is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Not killing other organisms being beneficial is my opponent's opinion. No proof was provided for my opponent's stance."
That might just be appeal to hypocrisy, you got me. ://
I can counter this, but I refuse to from my extreme apathy.
My opponent goes to say some things that I do not want to quote but involves my most hated and loved movie: Ice Age.
My opponent is right, I am so bemused that I am not able to respond.
However I will reference my opponents arguments!
You know what, I think the 'human' autotrophs would be able to photosynthesize not just CO2. I have a strange feeling my opponent might assume that CO2 is the only chemical they will have to live off, if they even were to have it in their diet.
Since these new humans would produce CO2 through respiration like humans do now, I don't see why they would eat it, and if they did, they can just make what they eat. CO2 problem solved.
I also have a strange sudden urge to say something out of the blue for no reason whatsoever:
In case you were wondering, the new species of autotrophs could not easily make its new food supply depleted.
There are three points to this:
1. That's not how things work, chemicals aren't just gone when photosynthesized. Inorganic substances like CO2 are produced and recycled by many organism. Many forms of life would have to be eliminated in order to cause, Bobo forbid, a depletion of a food source already many organism on all levels use to subsist. The new humans would also be able to use other organism to make inorganic substances if necessary anyway.
2. Autotrophic human thingys would be able to store carbohydrates in their cells and other kewl stuff man, they could produce usable energy for themselves. Therefore therefore. Compared to all the autotrophs, the additional ones could not use more than them.
3. Autotrophs love us, they are all around us and enjoy us producing resources for them.
If someone thinks all autotrophs have a bond of some sort (who would even say that) they should explain why so many autotrophs compete, starve, and are enemies to each other without humans.
4. The new autotrophic humans could go to mars and Venus to eat the CO2 there if necessary.
Finally: I forget...
"Cooking already is a form of art, and eating already is for pleasure and nutrients. I think the burden is on my opponent to prove this is not already so, seeing as my opponent asserted this first."
I never said it was not already, I just said it would solely be for those purposes rather than for energy.
"From my opponent's own source "It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way... Our digestive tract just chews all that stuff up - the chloroplasts and the DNA". The only conclusion I can draw from this is that my opponent is a treacherous slug attempting to undermine humanity by trying to convince us to become autotrophs when we cannot. A vote for Con is a vote for humans."
My opponent underestimates the level of my arrogance.
I am a slug! But I want to make humans jealous, rather than convince them to become autotrophs. There no fun including them.
"It is unlikely humans could become photosynthetic in this way"
Not the same way I be talking about. Also, I just put that source there because I am pompous, but it also shows that an animal can be/become autotrophic and still subsist.
Argument for no reason:
My opponent is obviously a homo sapien that hates sentient autotrophic slugs and probably eats them too... That's unethical and gross.
This is because my opponent does not realize that if humans have the technology to put plastids in human cells and use genetic engineering techniques, we could make a human autotroph species out of ourselves. My argument is "Humans should be made into Autotrophs".
"I assert my opponent's last line is fabrication. I am certain that my opponent bites, and I challenge it to prove otherwise."
But I don't have teeth, I'm a slug that lives off of chloroplast and plant matter. Well there was this one time I nibbled on candy corn, but nibbling is not biting!
How can my opponent possibly be such a scallywag as to make a total floccinaucinihilipilification of my catawampus statements!
Vote Pro if you think pooping is gross and want to be a superheroine!
A vote for pro is a vote for prosperity.
I crest my case.
I did not enjoy my opponent's arguments, because they went against mine. That alone should be sufficient to invalidate them. However, I will still humor my opponent and "rebut" its "arguments".
First of all, my opponent writes something. I leave this argument to the voters, because I'm too lazy to readdress it.
I will take a leaf out of my opponent's tree and say that although I can explain "that", I don't feel like it and won't bother. Homo Sapiens would, however, be objectively inferior to the new species, because the new species would be able to do everything Homo Sapiens can do and then some things they can't. Therefore, Homo Sapiens would be lesser and therefore inferior.
"Okay, well you can't misquote yourself either, but I will ignore it and leave it for the voters to decide" - Yuiru
My opponent is obviously "crazy authoritarian", trying to tell me what I can and can't do. Vote for Con if you feel that liberty should supersede the rights of the state. This is a non sequitur. I don't care.
"That might just be appeal to hypocrisy, you got me. ://" - Yuiru (Emphasis Mine)
My argument stands.
My opponent then goes on to babble something about not easily making food supplies depleted and stuff with no sources. I'm not using any sources either, but there's a double standard which allows me to get away with it. For no apparent reason, I will change my opponent's numbers to their corresponding symbols on the keyboard I'm using right now, so ! refers to point 1, @ to point 2, and so on and so on and so on and so on.
!. Sooooo? A new influx of CO2 users will consume the CO2 faster than it can be recycled. This will destroy the world.
@. Whaaaat? Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's the last round. Conduct should go to me even though I'm being a jerk (and telling voters how to vote).
£. Although I'll have to drop my argument/completely change it, my opponent concedes that autotrophs are enemies to each other. Therefore, plants will become enemies with humans if we become autotrophic.
$. Sounds completely infeasible.
About cooking: My opponent never said it was not already, but it also did not say that it was solely for those purposes, therefore my argument makes complete sense even though I completely forgot what it was.
Completely changing the topic of discussion because I like to jump around randomly.
"Not the same way I be talking about. Also, I just put that source there because I am pompous, but it also shows that an animal can be/become autotrophic and still subsist." - Yuiru
I was asking for proof humans could become autotrophs. My opponent concedes that it cannot provide any proof, except a bare assertion. My counter-argument stands.
My opponent is lying. It bit me. It cannot prove it did not, therefore it did. My assertions, unlike my opponent's, do not need to be backed up as I am scrupulously honest (unlike my deceptive opponent). This should convince you to vote for Con.
In conclusion, catawampus.
Vote Con if you care about humans. Vote Con if you don't care about humans. Vote Con.
A vote for Con is a vote for... um... Con?
I digest my case, because I'm not a bloody autotroph.
|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||0|