Melt the Hatchet to Build the Shuttle
Debate Rounds (4)
Humanity should stop research for the purpose of creating new weaponry (unless we encounter a hostile outside force with superior technology) and instead focus on getting the human race comfortably onto other planets with the intention of permanent settlement.
Hope this turns out to be a good, educational debate! If you have any questions, leave a comment, please.
CP A: It is human nature to fight and quarrel with other humans.
Yes, this seems to be an unfortunate part of our nature. While I believe we should stop weapons research, it is due to this that I believe we most likely will not, however my stance is that we should.
However, it is also human nature to band with our past enemies against a common hostile force. We can see this in WWII in Russia joining the Allies after Hitler ordered German forces to invade Russia. Russia didn't just stop fighting its past enemies and focus on Germany; Allied forces did not just agree to stop fighting Russian forces; Russia actively became a part of the Allied forces. They came to strategy talks, cooperated with US and English forces, and even bunked with our soldiers. If a hostile alien force (actually, even one that is not openly hostile may have this effect) were to be discovered, or the likelihood of one were to be shown to be high, many countries of the world would begin forming a massive alliance, and human-on-human conflict would decrease. Humans throughout history have often banded together against anyone that was "more different" than their past enemies.
CP B: Fighting humans is human nature and will never stop.
While I agree that humans will most likely continue to fight other humans, it isn't human-on-human conflict that is necessarily what is revealed by this. Based on things like bear bating and hunting for sport, it is safe to say that humans are just an aggressive species. Humans fight humans because they can be fought, not because they are other humans.
Also, I said that weapon research should be stopped, not fighting. Humans stopping to war is an unrealistic concept.
Finally for this counterpoint, while human-on-human conflict will most likely continue to some degree (ex: murder and rebellions), this does not dispute what we should do, which is what I am arguing.
CP C: Humans without fear, jealousy, or laziness are humans without joy, love, or hope.
Stopping weapon research would not stop fear because the weapons will still exist, and there are plenty of other things to fear, for example sickness and humiliation. It would not stop jealousy because, while new weapons would not be researched, more weapons would still be made, and some countries would always have more than other countries. Also, jealousy among civilians would still be present (ex: Why does that guy get to be rich? Why is she so much thinner than me? etc, etc.).
I will need some clarification on how laziness relates to this.
Finally, the removal of these things would not remove joy, love, or hope. Even if we truly only feel good emotions because we can feel bad ones, death and sadness would still be around. Regardless, I don't love people because I'm scared, jealous, or... lazy. I love people because they have good personalities, or because they are good to me. Even if war stops (which is not what this is about), there will always be a better future to hope for.
And joy... even if war were to stop, little bits of happiness like eating something good, or going to a fair with friends... those would not lose their value.
Now, onto my own points for why humanity should stop weapon research (at least, for now) and get us to the point where we are living on other planets and/or moons
P1: Limited resources
We are running out of space, water, and food on this planet, and we will continue to do so until we starve, kill, thirst, and sicken our species to endangerment or even extinction, potentially ruining or heavily damaging the ecosystems of our planet. The growth of the population on Earth is exponential: the more humans there are, the faster the population grows. Estimates place Earth's maximum capacity at 10 billion humans. Let's be optimistic and say the maximum is 12 billion. The most recent billion people was added in less than twenty years, whereas the first billion took thousands of years to reach. Unless there is an absolutely massive death of humans across the world, we will need to be out there soon.
P2: New discoveries
We have learned so much about our universe just by viewing it from Earth and from telescopes in space. We have discovered that there are planets made largely of diamonds, seen dust clouds that are light years long, and witnessed the death of stars. Con brought up human nature, and I planned on doing so as well- it is in our nature to explore, and to learn. As soon as a baby can, it begins trying to move around and explore its surroundings. People who have cared for toddlers know that it is hard to get them to stay in one spot, especially when they are somewhere they have never been before. The desire for discovery continues into adulthood for many, if not most, humans. Even as we explored our own world, we learned so much and expanded human knowledge greatly as a result. Even if we don't find a single living organism elsewhere in the universe to learn from, which is unlikely, we can learn much from the worlds that we choose to inhabit.
I would like to apologize for taking so long on this, I got a little busy and couldn't spend a whole lot of time to sit down and write. Here are my sources:
Discovering the Universe-Fifth Edition
The American Pageant-Twelfth Edition
As well as various articles on space that I have read in the past.
TheThirdSage forfeited this round.
TheThirdSage forfeited this round.
My opponent forfeited after making their opening statement without having given any arguments yet. I provided counterpoints and provided my own arguments which were not refuted, so I should win by default.
TheThirdSage forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Con results in conduct points to Pro. Pro's case was more in-depth and provided solid contentions and counter-points. Pro also listed multiple sources.
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.