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

Is a human's greatest attribute, intellegence also its greatest weakness?

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: 9/22/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 62110
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Pretty much the question is is intellegence good or bad? Or would we be better off not tinkering with our environment or creating inventions. Does it make us self-destructive.


Thank you The-Holy_Macrel (Pro) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. I (Con) is looking forward in a learning experience in a constructive debate.

Con will take the following position: human's greatest attribute is intelligence and is our greatest strength.
Debate Round No. 1


Lets start.
Modified definitons:
Human: an intellegent homo sapien
Animal: a spicies not intellegent to gain iq or innovate
Inellegence: the ability to aquire, apply skill, and innovate
Humans have fallen war, sin, environmental destruction, and a lot more. Do humans need to be intellegent to do this? This is the first question i will awnser to support my position. First of all we would behave as blankly as animals (not saying that animals are dumb) We would do things animals do. We wouldn't create shelter we would find it and we also wouldn't invent because we need higer iq to do that. We would behave a bit like apes but more barbaric. We would most likely do thing apes do and travel in packs like wolves. We wouldn't be smart enough to gain iq so we would stay in one age. Most people would call it the stone age but that required invention? Intellegence is the ability to aquire, apply skill, and innovate. But that leads to iq which is something you would be low on. So we would behave strictly like so.
-- wars would be alpha vs alpha having ritualized fights and rank and order would be based on attitude or personality rather than physical might. Like when two dogs stand next to each other to see who is the biggest dog. Therefore war cannot come about without intellegence.
--Without a moral compass sin isn't possible because sin is an immoral act but without morality nothing is wrong. A moral compass requires intellegence. Therefore you need intellegence for sin.
-- Habitat destruction, overexploitation, introduction of an alien spicies, and pollution are all the main causes of extinction. They also are all caused by humans not animals. Therefore without intellegent humans this wouldn't happen.

And so the final conclusion to my main arguement based on my evidence i declare that the issues we see on earth are all because of humans And that humans needed intellegence to do all of this.


Pro comes out of the gate, in Round 2, with “Modified definitions.” In starting a debate, all definitions, rules, etc., must be presented by “The Instigator” in Round 1 before “The Contender” decides to accept.

In Round 2 Pro defines, “Animal: a species not intelligent to gain IQ or innovate.”

According to the following references and research, animals do innovate, have intelligence, and therefore, debunks Pro's definition:

Con must remind Pro that humans are part of the animal kingdom (

Humans and all other animals are a product, or created, by the Laws of Nature ( Therefore, animal “intelligence” is part of nature. Animal “intelligence” is a manifestation of life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (aka, survival, procreation, etc., “Happiness” for us humans)” ( In other words, once alive, all “Life” must have the freedom (“Liberty”), in “the pursuit of” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Survival is a form of positive-feedback to stay alive and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's polished version of Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Life's Unalienable Rights is a dynamic interface or bio-program where all “Life” has a craving to sustain, improve and prolong itself, with the desire to increase freedom (“Liberty”), while decreasing the energy in “the pursuit of” an objective, and in the process, exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). This becomes the foundation for the “Natural Selection” process; the machinery of evolution for life, “intelligence”, social systems, technology, free-markets, etc.

Pro made reference to a “moral compass.”

The Absolute Values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) of the members within the group. Goodwill is a Conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive-feedback. Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The objective of morality is to keep a group alive, is the evolution of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the universal absolute moral thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity.

Of course morality is a man-made word that simply refers to the values of Right or Wrong. These values generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-species relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Morality is universal and absolute, having the objective of group formation, and maintaining the moral values of Right and Wrong supporting the binary position of life's Unalienable Rights resulting in positive- or negative-feedback respectively. Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and therefore, part of the Laws of Nature.

Pro stated, “Habitat destruction, overexploitation, introduction of an alien species, and pollution are all the main causes of extinction. They also are all caused by humans not animals.”

Extinction” is part of evolution and been around long before humans. One simple example, the extinction of the dinosaurs, was not caused by humans.

It would seem Pro blames the ills of the world on human intelligence. Con takes the position, it is through human intelligence recognizing those ills and the application of science to, one day, fix those ills. Recognizing and fixing those ills is the byproduct of intelligence from life's Unalienable Rights in the continuing evolution of moral positive-feedback being the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to morally operate within the awesome machinery of nature.
Debate Round No. 2


First my "modified definitions" were just what i ment when i used the certain term. I meant nothing about the actual definitions. Only stating what i meant. But would we be better off unintellegent? My main causes are more modern because we need more and more resources to support the growing population or money. This is compared to when we were less technologically advanced but then we started to and forgot to protect nature and then on April 22, 1970, the date of the first Earth Day celebration in the United States, is often cited as the start of the modern environmental movement. On that day, 20 million Americans filled parks and streets in protest on the first day. It is considered when the environment became a concern. Human can be good or bad but humans have knowledge not to be mistaken for wisedom, knowledge is what people gained they started inventing but were intent and blinded by it. And ended up hurting the environment animals (not including humans) don't go logging. Animals don't create nuclear waste. Extiction is highly incresed by humans who are only stoppable by themselves. And that is only a tip of the iceberg! For the sake of arguement lets say there were the caveman days none of this happened because they weren't intellegent enogh to do all this.

This is why we would be better off unintellegent.
Humans are naturly self-destructive.

So my point here concludes to intellegent humans are more destructive than un intellegent ones.


Pro keeps on insisting the term “intelligence” only applies to humans, where Con gave numerous references, in Round 2, demonstrating “intelligence” applies to all animals with a brain. Apparently, we humans are on the high end of the “intelligence” spectrum, which gave us the incarnation of the Laws of Nature. We humans are now using the Laws of Nature, as stated in Round 2, in the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to morally operate within the awesome machinery of nature.

Pro must realize, we humans are part of nature, and therefore, we are a way for nature to see and experience itself. Essentially, through “intelligence” we humans maybe the only animal, on this planet, who first came to have an “Earth Day,” recognizing we are stewards of our environment. Us humans know and understand, like no other animal on earth, we have a choice to exploit or preserve and embrace our environment, tailored to optimize the human experience in the pursuit of global happiness.

If humans choose to exploit and destroy our environment, extinction maybe our future. With all those unknown number of galaxies in the Cosmos, would anyone of them care about our choice? Nature is not cruel or kind, just indifferent as it gives all “Life,” the freedom (“Liberty”) in “the pursuit of” positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans).

My advice to Pro, keep up the good work, using your “intelligence” as your “greatest” strength, by bringing attention to those uninformed humans about our environmental stewardship responsibilities, on the battlefield of the internet; for our “caveman days” are over.

Since those “caveman days” are over, our human greatest attribute of “intelligence” may save life on earth as we turn the clock forward in time when our sun runs out of fuel. When that time happens, the sun will engulf the earth killing all life on it, including those who live in “caves." Through our children's evolution of “intelligence,” may one day colonize space, saving life, in a Noah's Ark scenario. Thank God for human's “greatest attribute,” that is, the strength of human “intelligence.”
Debate Round No. 3


It is both the greatest strength and weakness. But i still say we would be better off as a spicies if we we sorry for my lack of term but "cavemanish" i would call it.

I am making the point that humans keep breaking each-other down with wars and such. And i agree with your point that we may save ourselves. But i belive that technology is going too far scientists are starting to make human organs soon we will have a whole human. I mean by intellegence by what we have today. Soon we might bring our own extinction. And personally i think the united states might one day end. It is starting to fall apart especially with obama in office. And our technological progress is exponentialating, Before 1902 people thought that human flight was rediculos but we do it constantly. One day i feel we will make a mistake that will cost us our lives if we aren't judged yet. (i am refering to the gret tribulation in which i belive will happen because i am christian). There will always be some issue, there is no escaping conflict and all of ths is how i reach what i have of a final conclusion which is
humanity will one day be too intellegent for its own good.

And i don't wish we weren't intellegent i am only saying that we would cause less problems without our gift.
So indeed do thank god for our intellegence.


Pro keeps fantasizing about the “cavemanish” era, implying that was the best of times. If that time was so great, humanity would not have evolved to where it is today.

It is good Pro agrees with Con that “we may save ourselves,” where that only comes from the moral application of intelligence.

Pro thinks “technology is going too far,” where Con thinks it is not going far enough. Making “human organs” is a good thing, perhaps one day, Pro will think otherwise, if Pro comes to need a new organ.

Pro thinks we “might bring our own extinction,” where Con's position about such an event, is a simple case of unintelligence (aka “cavemanish”).

Pro “thinks the United States might one day end.” If one was to read the US Constitution, the conclusion would be the United States has ended years ago, only the name and flag continues.

Pro's rebuttal turns towards belief and religion ending with “the final conclusion which is humanity will one day be too intelligent for its own good.” Con's position being morality is the primary nemesis not intelligence. All the negative points Pro is making thus far, are due to morality not intelligence.

Pro's closing paragraph is the most confusing. On one hand Pro blames “our gift” of intelligence is the cause of problems, where on the other hand, Pro “thanks God for our intelligence.”
Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for debating me it has benn a most exciting first debate for me. And i wish the best of luck to you in future debates.
But my final conclusion boils down to:
Humanity's greatest strength has also been its greatest weakness.

Voters remember to be completely unbiased. Don't vote for me because you agree with my points and don't vote for him because you agree with his. Vote for the best debate.


Thank you Pro for those kind words, as they reflect my feelings towards you.

In summary, human's “greatest attribute” is intelligence complemented with morality; “its greatest weakness,” is intelligence complemented with immorality.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
atmas..... You are very right. We should never make decisions based on emotions. The wise thing to do is step back and try to see things more clearly.The problems with emotions is they are so fickle. You fell one way today and another way tomorrow.If you are not sure about the wisdom in a decision, step back and let things play out some more.

Sometimes war is the only wise decision to make. Appeasement never works for a bully.They thrive on weakness.Peace through strength.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I would say his greatest attribute is wisdom. The ability to utilize the intelligence he has for constructive purposes.There are people that can tell you of the exact compounds and elements in heroine as they pump it into their vein.They have the intelligence and knowledge about heroine, but not the wisdom not to inject it into their body.

We have emphasized knowledge without emphasizing wisdom , and have created multiple probems.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
I would like to point out Pro's usage of Intelligence when they actually mean Emotion. Our intelligence gives us both the tools for war and the means to overcome a conflict in a non-violent way. It is our emotions that determine which path we will take.
No votes have been placed for this debate.