The Instigator
SweetCrackerJack
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kbub
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Mosquitos kill more people than sharks.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
kbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,219 times Debate No: 42921
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

SweetCrackerJack

Pro

I, pro, will defend the position that mosquitos, do in fact, kill more people than sharks.

Due to scientific studies, Mosquitoes kill 2 to 3 million people per yer, while infecting about 200 million people per year.

My proof is proved in this wikipedia entry:
A shark attack is an attack on a human by a shark. Every year around 100 shark attacks are reported worldwide. Seventeen fatalities were recorded as having being caused by shark attacks in 2011, out of 118 recorded attacks.[1] Despite their relative rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks, such as the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916, and horror fiction and films such as the Jaws series. Out of more than 480 shark species, only three are responsible for two-digit number of fatal unprovoked attacks on humans: the great white, tiger and bull;[2] however, the oceanic whitetip has probably killed many more castaways, not recorded in the statistics.[3]

What it states is that less than a thousand people are killed by sharks each year, which proves my position that Mosquitoes do indeed kill more than sharks because of their deadly diseases such as malaria.

To coclude this session, this passage declares that all my statements are true.
kbub

Con

[Voters: The following argument will be in the form of SATIRE. Satirical debates follow standard debate rules, but have arguments that are often silly. Usually they have an underlying message that they try to convey, wrapped in a coat of irony. They are usually very fun. After this bracket, my entire debate will satirical. I may even argue against "satires" while being satirical, so please don't be confused, but vote, laugh, and think according to the flow. Please enjoy! (I will be playing the role of a mosquito.)]

I'd like to thank SweetCrackerJack for the interesting debate topic.

Definition of "people:" "the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.[1]" As the dominant species, this is obviously referring to mosquitoes, since humans are too unintelligent to form nations.

My opponent's arguments revolve around the idea that we mosquitoes "kill" more than sharks do.

I will oppose these claims in a number of ways:

Contention 1: We do not "kill;" diseases that we carry kill. We are simply trying to survive. Sucking the blood of mammals is a natural part of our life cycle [2]. We are born with a proboscis; it is natural for us suck blood [2].

Contention 2: Human lives aren't as valuable as mosquito lives, and therefore "killing" should be measured in terms of mosquito lives lost.

Why humans? You aren't even mentioning mosquito lives lost! This is animal rights gone way too far, my friend.

Subpoint A: We mosquitoes kill each other exactly as often as sharks kill us: Zero. [2] Therefore, mosquitoes do not kill more than people do.


Contention 3: Even if you buy that we and not our diseases are causing the death of humans, "killing" humans is pest control and saves valuable mosquito lives. While we mosquitoes are not responsible for these diseases that are outside our control, humans are literally designing diseases to kill us [3]. It is no secret that humans love to kill us. Here's an example of some equipment that we believe humans intentionally developed to kill mosquitoes [7, 8]. Just a few human death saves hundreds or even thousands of mosquito lives. Don't let my opponent's hippy arguments throw you off. Think of the larvae [9]!


Contention 4: Even if you were to measure "killing" to be in terms of all creatures, by controlling the population of humans we are saving trillions of insect lives and even the lives of mammals in the long term, since humans are destroying the earth through pollution and global warming [4, 5, 6].


Short rebuttal:
My opponent suggests that wikipedia "proves" her/his argument. Firstly, this is not the case, since all four of my contentions would be successful even if all your arguments prove true.

Secondly, you do not cite your source. You just say it comes from wikipedia. How am I supposed to find out whether your information is accurate?

Additionally, you say "due to scientific studies" and refuse to cite anything. All of your arguments are based on "evidence," but because you don't provide sources I can't analyze any of it.

Also, I think my opponent's assumption that we have diseases is very offensive. It is not "my malaria;" I happen to have been born with malaria. Her/his argument is very insensitive. My brother was swatted by a human simply because the human assumed that he had milaria. That was the worst hour of my life.

Remember, my opponent does not provide a single source about mosquitoes or humans, and doesn't cite the passage on shark attacks on humans.

Thanks! Looking forward to a fun debate.


[1]https://www.google.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://www.mosquitoes.org...

[3] http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu...

[4] http://www.mnn.com...

[5] http://dsc.discovery.com...

[6] http://www.nrdc.org...

[7]http://www.skeeterdefeater.com...

[8] http://www.wikihow.com...

[9]http://www.ask.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

SweetCrackerJack forfeited this round.
kbub

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round. I will not add any new arguments this round, but will elaborate next round.

Please recognize voters that forfeiting lowers the quality of this debate and wastes all of our time, in addition to being simply rude. We might want to consider cracking down on those who forfeit debates by having this disservice noted in the RFD (reasons for decision).

I extend all of my arguments. If my opponent forfeits again I will continue to debate, just for fun.
Debate Round No. 2
SweetCrackerJack

Pro

SweetCrackerJack forfeited this round.
kbub

Con

On intelligence tests, we mosquitoes have found humans disappointing. In Flying Intelligence, humans scored particularly low scores; they don't even have the capacity to move off the ground. In Evasion Tactics Intelligence, humans utterly fail, as can be seen by their poor encounters with bullets, arrows, and other projectiles. Mosquitoes are naturally superior in that regard. Additionally, life is about reproduction: humans fail their natural task by having only a few children at a time.

Humans have entirely different bodies than we do: Killing a human doesn't even compare to killing a mosquito. Pretty much anyone would save a mosquito rather than I human; I've asked all my friends and they agree.

Humans are also morally inferior: not one is able to have faith in the Great Mosquito, nor is any one of them able to understand his Son who was Swatted for our sins. Human's don't even have souls. True, they seem to react to pain, but that's not really any sort of consciousness, is it? They are a bit better than machines. We are able to create great works of art.

Thus, by "eating" humans we are actually saving the lives of the more evolved and developed species. They are naturally inferior and they taste great. Let's do some population control, shall we? I know what I'm having for breakfast.

(Remember: We mosquitoes murder each other exactly as often as sharks: zero. Don't listen to my opponent's attempt to debate from the perspective of humans: that would be animal rights gone too far.)

Thanks to the voters! Please read and enjoy!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Basically, I'm saying that either mosquitoes and sharks both don't kill people, or that mosquitoes kill people less than sharks since they don't intend to kill, or that mosquitoes kill people less than sharks because they save everyone. The conditions are based on the meaning of "people."
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Hey funwiththoughts, just wanted to make sure that you saw my arguments and understood that it was a satirical debate!

If "people" are mosquitoes (which I argue is the best option), then:

1: Sharks kill and mosquitoes kill "people" equally.

2. Or, mosquitoes actually save mosquito lives by "population control" on humans, who like to murder "people" (mosquitoes).

3. Saves mosquitoes by ending global warming and pollution throgh "population control" on humans.

If "people" are animals in general (including non-mosquito, which I argue is the second-best option), then:

1. Mosquitoes do not kill people, since disease spreading is accidental.

2. Mosquitoes, far from "killing," actually saves everyone's lives due to ending global warming and pollution, which are huge risks to animalkind.

If "people" are humans (which I agrue is the worst), then:

1. Mosquitoes do not kill people, since disease spreading is accidental

2. Mosquitoes may "cause more deaths," but do not "kill" since meat eating is 100% natural and forced for mosquitoes.

3. Mosquitoes are actually saving human lives by stopping overpopulation and global warming, not "killing" them. I argue that "population control" is the best way to stop the non-sentient human species from destroying themselves.

I made eight arguments at least; my opponent forfeited every round. If even one of these arguments is in the debate, then I theoretically should win since it is UNCONTESTED. After all, we both know on isn't supposed to vote based on our personal beliefs but on what happened in the debate (unless the debate is blatantly offensive like racism. Which I assume isn't the case because you gave me conduct points.).

I also had nine sources supporting my arguments. Do you have any explanation?

Thanks for your patience! I appreciate your taking the time to hear me out!
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Sorry, typo under subpoint A: Mosquitoes and SHARKS kill mosquitoes exactly as often: zero.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
This will be fun XD
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Has Pro seen Jaws?
Posted by JustAnotherGuy 3 years ago
JustAnotherGuy
This isn't really a question up for debate.
Posted by JustAnotherGuy 3 years ago
JustAnotherGuy
This isn't really a question up for debate.
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
You know what... I could accept this... It's really the virus from the mosquitos that kills you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
SweetCrackerJackkbubTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
SweetCrackerJackkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SweetCrackerJackkbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments and points go clearly to Con. Forfeits hate forfeits, they take away what could have been a fun debate. Thanks for the laughs Con.