The Instigator
infam0us
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
lziggyrun12
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
infam0us
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,077 times Debate No: 10917
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (4)

 

infam0us

Pro

I will now post definitions to clarify the meaning of my resolution. Please no arguing over semantics. If my opponent greatly disagrees with one of my definitions (so much so that he thinks abiding by them will rig his chances in the debate) than he may say so and *offer* an alternate definition.

Our existence on Earth: refers to our lives as humans on the planet which sustains us, Earth.
Pointless: otiose; serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being. (1)

Contention 1: Life does not add up or lead to anything because all life on Earth one day will cease to exist.

There are no reliable sources that can exhaustively account for the existence of an afterlife; therefore, we must conclude and debate around the premise that there is none. If my opponent wants to assert the opposite, than he will be given a chance during his round. It is self-evident that the Earth and all of the existence upon it is bound to come to an end at some point. Scientists heavily speculate the when and the why but there is consensus that the Earth and its inhabitants will cease to exist at some point. Since I am arguing based upon the premise of there being no afterlife, there is no point for an individual to behave a certain way or do certain things (such as schooling, working a job, etc). Social norms and governmental control have dictated this largely but when looking at the bigger picture you will see that it does not matter. Even if your life led on Earth is enjoyable, it will all cease to an end and you will have nothing to show for it after your death; all effort will be in vain. If one is experiencing greater enjoyment or success from someone's past life, then their greater enjoyment/success will too be in vain due to the inevitable end of life and end of existence.

Contention 2: Our existence is destructive and if anything negative towards Earth itself.

People commit suicide, smoke cigarettes, eat unhealthily, pollute the environment, kill each other, and other numerous destructive and self-destructive acts/habits. Humans produce waste and have no space to put it so bury it into the Earth, polluting soil and creating the possibility of polluting water, food, or plants in the process. When arguing towards the point of human life, one must take into consideration that humans have a negative existence: we undo more than we do. Sure, we have the cell phone that can let you talk to people many miles away or we have the internet that can let you talk to anyone else that has a connection and a computer despite our global distance. However, the Earth was a more natural and pure place before we began to exist. We have not only damaged our own existence but the future existence of those to come on Earth.

Conclusion: My definition of pointless is, "having no excuse to exist." Not only do we have no reason to exist in the first place (first contention), we do not even aim to justify our own existence peacefully and healthily (second contention). With the above information provided, I urge you to vote pro.

1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... (if this page does not load for you, you can type 'define: pointless' into Google and read the first result, second definition)
lziggyrun12

Con

Alright, my opponent is saying that our existence is useless. He is also stating that we are harming our own existence by polluting, wasting, etc.

Although he makes valid points, I strongly disagree. If our existence was useless then why are we here? It was not an option for us to exist. It had to have happened for a reason, although those reasons are not clear. We can not change the fact that we exist, nor can we take back the damage done to our earth. Granted there is a lot of pollution, fossil fuels are only lessening as time goes on, and people are killing themselves and ichthyology. That does not make our existence useless; just harmful. Everyone on this earth has a destiny, a place to make a metaphorical footprint on the face of the earth. It is also true that Earth was a lot more natural before we came here. I ask, why would God want such a beautiful Earth, with no uses for it? What else could he have done with planet Earth other than create humans? To answer my own question I am going to say nothing.

He states that there is no afterlife and that basically if he can be proved wrong then he will stand corrected. By saying that there is no afterlife, you are also implying that there is no God. If there is no God, explain the bible. There is also the "ghost" theory, that your spirit either goes to hell, heaven, or remains here on the earth. There is reasonable proof of a said "ghost" or spirit. There are demonic possessions, haunting, so on and so fourth. The bottom line is I do believe, along with many other people that there is an afterlife. What happens to you in your afterlife is based on your actions as a human on Earth. That alone could be the reasoning for existence. There is also a lot to see in the world, a lot to be happy about, and a lot of lessons to be learned. Though the world is not at its best, or as good as it once was, its still a beautiful thing. I think that God or whoever it is the voters believe in, wanted something to explore this earth and kind of see what we can do with it. That is my opinion on the reasoning of our existence as humans.

I recommend you vote con!
Debate Round No. 1
infam0us

Pro

Con Argument 1:
A. If our existence was useless then why are we here?
B. It was not an option for us to exist.
C. That does not make our existence useless; just harmful.
D. Everyone on this earth has a destiny, a place to make a metaphorical footprint on the face of the earth.

Pro Response 1: 1A - Useless is definitely not the same word as pointless. My conclusion states that we have no point to exist and we are more harmful than "useless" as you choose to assert. It would be different if we "just existed" and didn't hurt the Earth, each other, ourselves, didn't do anything, etc. That would be the definition of a "useless existence." Clearly, we do not live a useless life but a pointless one as I established in the resolve and in my case.

1B - It was not an option to exist for ANYTHING that currently exists to our knowledge. I agree with that point but it doesn't really do anything to dismantle my case. Not choosing to exist is NOT equal to having a point of existence. You are presupposing the opposite in your following arguments.

1C - Again, the resolve states pointless, not useless. So, the only thing you've really proven thus far is that our existence is not only pointless but harmful too; sounds like a double whammy for your argument.

1D - Regardless of our destiny, our life will end and so will the lives of those affected by our own destiny and so forth. At the end of our existence, every destiny is in vain and every "metaphorical footprint" will be washed away. The cumulative results of such "metaphorical footprints" even in the best case scenario will hold testament to nothing when our existence ceases.

Con Argument 2:
A. By saying that there is no afterlife, you are also implying that there is no God.
B. If there is no God, explain the bible.
C. There is also the "ghost" theory, that your spirit either goes to hell, heaven, or remains here on the earth. There is reasonable proof of a said "ghost" or spirit. There are demonic possessions, haunting, so on and so fourth.
D. There is also a lot to see in the world, a lot to be happy about, and a lot of lessons to be learned
E. What happens to you in your afterlife is based on your actions as a human on Earth. That alone could be the reasoning for existence.

Pro Response 2: 2A - Strawman argument. I never said there wasn't a God but you've acted as I have and continued with this argument. An afterlife can exist without God. If there is an afterlife, it is beyond our understanding and recording because we'd have no window to see into such a realm without dying. Therefore, we can't reasonably say whether or not a God is necessary to maintain such a thing. However, you presuppose this. As I stated in my first contention, human life is finite. In simpler terms, there's no coming back after we die. If an afterlife needs a deity though, why must it be your deity? Why can't it be Allah or Zeus?

2B - Logically false. If there is no Allah, explain the Koran. Tell me why your religion is more right than another religion and why the book written about your religion serves as proof for the existence of your deity while other pieces of literature for other deities do not.

2C - That's cool and all, what relevance does it have towards the RESOLVE? We are not arguing whether or not afterlife exists, we're talking about whether or not existence is pointless. You have pulled a red herring and lost complete track of the argument. Regardless, in order to make it look like I do not concede, I will refute your points. The strongest evidence demonic possessions, ghosts, hauntings, etc have is personal anecdotes. However, things like that are unexplained. We try to use what we already know to put a label on what we do not know. The supernatural is not equal to the unexplained nor is a personal anecdote evidence for something.

2D - You have now completely lost track of the argument. All of what you said is true but the resolve is that our existence on Earth is pointless. Even if we do have things to be happy about, lessons to learn, and such, you have not applied this towards the resolve. You have also not shown this in a light to support the validation of our existence.

2E - You have provided no proof for an afterlife but you have based almost half your argument around it. In fact, your whole argument is based upon the metaphysical. I stated in my first contention that to our knowledge there is not an afterlife. It is your job as con to falsify that; you have not done so yet you've based your argument around it. I cannot consider it valid if you fail to provide proof or reasonable arguments.

Conclusion: Con has hardly refuted my points thus far and continues to rely on baseless claims and assertions. I have provided reasonable explanation for my claims and assertions. Con has also not argued towards the resolution while I have fully. I urge you to vote pro.
lziggyrun12

Con

Yet again my opponent is making some good points, but on the other hand there are some that I don't understand. He says I failed as a con to refute any arguments, but all my arguments are in some how wrapped around the debates topic. I agree that we are not arguing over whether or not there is an after life, but it seems to me like our reasoning for life is well based on our afterlife.

Pointless and useless are defiantly not two different things because they are tied together, if something has no use it also has no point. You are telling the voters that our existence has no point. Regardless of the religion you base your life on other than Atheist. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life.

I have made my own point and I will not continue to argue my opponents points for this round. Call that bad conduct, but it is also the truth.
Debate Round No. 2
infam0us

Pro

Con Argument 3:
A. He says I failed as a con to refute any arguments, but all my arguments are in some how wrapped around the debates topic.
B. I agree that we are not arguing over whether or not there is an after life, but it seems to me like our reasoning for life is well based on our afterlife.
C. Pointless and useless are defiantly not two different things because they are tied together, if something has no use it also has no point.
D. You are telling the voters that our existence has no point. Regardless of the religion you base your life on other than Atheist. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life.
E. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life.
F. I have made my own point and I will not continue to argue my opponents points for this round. Call that bad conduct, but it is also the truth.

Pro Response 3: 3A - You have not refuted any of my arguments and you have not really made any strong ones of your own. Arguments can be wrapped around the resolution yet still ineffective for the side using them. Your arguments are not only ineffective but misdirected. Also, not exactly aimed at argument A but if you don't understand some of my arguments, how are you qualified to debate against them?

3B - Afterlife isn't a usable reason! We cannot be certain of an afterlife and you've provided no evidence whatsoever. If I want to live for/on the basis that when I die I'll become a super happy rainbow unicorn, then I can by all means. Does it make it anymore true than the proposition of an afterlife? NO. You're going to have to provide serious evidence if you want to keep arguing on the basis of an afterlife being the point for our existence.

3C - Wow, I tell you not to argue semantics and you do it anyway. I refuse to argue semantics with you. This debate is about the resolve, not definitions.

3D - Yes I am telling them that and you've done nothing to stand in the way of my arguments other than keep rambling about an afterlife. If you'd like to debate the existence of an afterlife, please go elsewhere. Living your life for something you aren't entirely sure is there is completely futile especially when there is no proof for an afterlife and never will be because you can't experience afterlife without dying. Afterlife occurs post-existence and is therefore not even relevant to the resolve. This debate is about the point for our existence, which is LIFE, not AFTERLIFE. Until you can prove the existence of AFTERLIFE, it is not an element of LIFE.

3E - Without proof we cannot be certain of an afterlife. There is not even any reasoning that could lead you to that deduction other than, "My consciousness is so important that it must never end." You're being really stubborn and within your stubbornness you aren't even persuasive or argumentative.

3D - You made your point but I refuted it entirely. If you're refusing to argue against my points, than how can I make any more points directed at you? I've said everything I've wanted to at this point in time, it's now your turn to refute it. That's the point of debate.

Conclusion: Con now refuses to debate me on the premise that he is certain he is right. We'll see how well that works out for him in the votes. Con is rude and stubborn by accepting my debate and then refusing to refute my points. Instead, he keeps pushing forward the concept of an afterlife with no reasoning shown. I strongly urge you to vote pro.
lziggyrun12

Con

lziggyrun12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
infam0us

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. All my arguments still stand. Vote pro.
lziggyrun12

Con

Yes to be honest Im just a high school student, I have so much homework I dont even have anymore time to post a long debate. Besides my oppenent has a great upper hand, I didn't have much knowledge on the subject in the first place. My apologies for accepting I debate I knew I wouldnt have much chance in. I was also unaware of how... rather bad my skills at debating are. With more practice I will continue debating, until then I think I should lay this website to rest.

Yeah... Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lziggyrun12 7 years ago
lziggyrun12
Well thank you. I agree with you, it would be more interesting of a debate if i could debate with someone on my level, that way I wouldnt get owned. =p
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
ziggy, you're not that bad. they need to implement a better ranking system around here so novices can debate novices, intermediates with intermediates, etc.
Posted by lziggyrun12 7 years ago
lziggyrun12
I was even surprised at my 7 points. My arguments were hardly to be considered arguments. To further elaborate on my accepting this debate which I still feel bad about, I have never debated before on this website, so I was basically looking for the easiest debate topic I set my eyes on. I saw this debate and thought maybe I could atleast make a few good points to try out some basic skills. In which yes, I lack. So I was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers?
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
wow, how did con get 7 points? objectively speaking here, con lost and admitted it... wow, not cool.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Ha ha, I doubt it matters. Unless Con has some surprise genius argument, you've got this one in the bag.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
ughhhh... my last argument against con should say 3F.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
thanks for taking time to explain it, it's much appreciated. anyhow, i'm gonna be really disappointed if con doesn't respond.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
No, it's "I think therefore you're not" ; )

Weird, I can't find anything on google either : /

I gotta leave in like 2 minutes for an appointment, I'll explain it later.

Or, you can search google books for "The Freedom of the Will" by J.R. Lucas. See the chapter "A Common Sense Response."
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
also, could someone please define to me what is an Ionian fallacy? i googled it and failed to find anything very relative.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
so is solipsism basically the fancy word for the saying, "I think, therefore I am?"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
infam0uslziggyrun12Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
infam0uslziggyrun12Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by VanShiZZle 7 years ago
VanShiZZle
infam0uslziggyrun12Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
infam0uslziggyrun12Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70