The Instigator
Arganger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FanboyMctroll
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

No such thing as a need

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 1 vote the winner is...
FanboyMctroll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 103634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Arganger

Pro

You go first.
FanboyMctroll

Con

Human beings have a few needs, just a few though. Water, food are the two basic ones, then shelter and clothing for harsh weather. Not too many more then that for basic survival, the rest we don't need
Debate Round No. 1
Arganger

Pro

But the idea of basic survival is a want in itself. You want to live,that isn't driven by a need but a strong want.
FanboyMctroll

Con

Basic human survival showcases the need to survive, in every aspect of life itself all organisms since the dawn of time have followed the basic code of survival. Species of all kind will become aggressive when in danger or attacked, this stems from the fact that it's all about survival.

Take a human being and try to drown and hold them under water, their basic instinct will kick in and they will fight to not drown, they will struggle for a breath of air. It's a basic instinct in humans as well as other organisms. The need to fight and survive includes the fact that humans as well as any other species need to eat to survive as well as drink, these needs come from our body, you start not feeling well if you don't eat for a long time, you start feeling dizzy if you do not consume water, these basic traits show that the human body needs things in order to live. Living is what humans were born and evolved to. Live and procreate and reproduce, it's the basic law of life. So there are basic needs for life.

Without needs there would be no life
Debate Round No. 2
Arganger

Pro

The body wants to live, but even that is a strong desire, everything on the planet could die, the world would just be a barren rock from then on. The body has the possibility to have the same reactions to things unnecessary to survival, like in the case of a bad drug addiction, water boarding, or anxiety.

Because you see, I would argue that anything considered a need simply comes from a strong desire to live. Death comes to everyone anyway eventually, in a way food, water, and shelter in a way simply postpone it.
FanboyMctroll

Con

If we talk about need in humans, then life is the basic essential of that. While an average human lives approximately 75 years, in those 75 years humans have basic needs.

Now if you want to discuss the universe without life in it, there are needs required by the solar system in order to function. The sun which provides life on our planet is essentially a big gas ball, once the gas is all burned up the sun will explode, so you can argue that the sun has a need for hydrogen in order to sustain it's life. Planets need orbital gravity in order to stay in the solar system, otherwise they would collide or drift off into space.

Everything NEEDS something to sustain it. Without needs there would be nothing.

And if you want to discuss human death, funeral parlors need death to stay in business. So there are needs for everything in life, death, universe.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 10 months ago
PowerPikachu21
If you input a code into a program, the program needs to follow the code. It has no choice.
Posted by VyleKarma 10 months ago
VyleKarma
"Need" generally means "unconditionally required to sustain life," which would mean Con is right by definition, but you didn't really define the terms of the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DNehlsen 10 months ago
DNehlsen
ArgangerFanboyMctrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a knockout-blow-argument in the last round, bringing up the relativity of needs in regard to the sustenance of something.