The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
raskuseal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

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: 2/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,213 times Debate No: 85931
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*1st round is for acceptance, and if you want to introduce yourself.
*There are no round rules other than the above rule.


Resolution
Plants are superior organisms to humans.

Pro
Has the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that plants are superior organisms to humans.

Con
Has also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that plants are superior organisms to humans.


*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.

Otherwise...

*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.


Definitions

plants - any organism that belongs to Kingdom Plantae.
http://www.biology-online.org...

superior - greater in degree.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

organisms - living things that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.
http://www.biology-online.org...

humans - bipedal primates belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens.
http://www.biology-online.org...

homo sapiens - the species group of bipedal hominins characterized by having higher and vertical forehead, brain volume of about 1,400 cc, smaller teeth and jaw, and prominent chin relative to earlier hominins.
http://www.biology-online.org...

May the better argument win!
raskuseal

Con

Hello, I am Raskuseal, and I will accept this debate. I will abide the rules Pro set to prove my side of the argument.

My resolution is that people are Superior to plants.
I also agree with the set definitions of plants, superior, organisms, humans, and homo sapiens.
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for accepting, Con.
Also, I must reluctantly point out that Con's "burden" isn't really as difficult as Con indicated.
Con doesn't need to show that humans are superior, rather he needs to show that humans are either EQUAL TO or SUPERIOR TO plants to effectively cast doubt on the resolution.

I affirm that plants are superior organisms to humans because:

1. Plants can produce their own food, internally, as long as they have sunlight.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2. Plants can reproduce efficiently without the need for a partner, and pollination can be done by wind, so no other organisms are absolutely necessary for plant reproduction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

3. Plants do not need shelter, and, in manycases, are a source for shelter to humans.
https://www.census.gov...

4. Plants are viable in almost all of earth's climates.
https://www.researchgate.net...

5. The population of plants exponentially surpasses that of humans, which speaks to their greater reproductive dominance on earth.
http://www.factmonster.com...

6. Plants lived for millions of years without humans, and could continue to do so if humans died off; humans MUST have plants to live and would perish without them.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

7. Plants actually help to reduce CO2's effect on climate change.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk...

8. Plants provide medicine, clothing, shelter, food, and oxygen for humans and most animals.
http://kids.britannica.com...

9. Without any plants, all known ecosystems would collapse, while if humans died off, ecosystems could thrive, perhaps even more so.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

10. Plants are able to regrow appendages.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Yeah, I know, plants can't reason, it's likely they don't feel love, they're probably not conscious, and they may lack the innovation that humans bring to the table, but these abilities/attributes are only products of our struggle to survive that plants simply need not worry about.

Humans need reason to discern how to get and choose food to eat, and plants can just eat sunlight.

Humans feel love, because it's needed to acquire mates and friendship, which builds society and furthers the species, but plants don't need a mate or society or any friends to further their species, because they are such self-sufficient organisms who can reproduce with the help of the wind.

Humans need consciousness to interact with reality, while plants can use tropisms to detect their environment, which, because it is differential cell growth, conserves energy unlike all that thinking we have to do to merely interact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Humans need innovation to make better shelter, transportation, communication, and entertainment, but plants aren't as vulnerable to the elements, they don't need to travel, they don't need to communicate, and don't need entertainment; plants maintain homeostasis without all of the extra effort humans require.

To sum up,
Humans' existence is contingent on the existence of plants, not the other way around.

Humans are constantly struggling to find food, leaving millions of humans starving every day; imagine if humans were as superior as plants and could step outside and just eat the sun...world hunger would end.

Humans are so needy because we're so vulnerable to weather, we require so much energy to maintain homeostasis, we require a mate for reproduction, we require communication to attract a mate, and we get sick and need medicine; plants need sun, soil, water, and wind, and they're good, so all of those beneficial human attributes, like reason, innovation, and love are effectively unnecessary to a superior surviving organism that requires none of these things.
raskuseal

Con

For this round, I will disprove some of pro's points in the argument.

1.) Everything that lives needs sunlight to survive. Plants indeed feed off photosynthesis, but people need sunlight too. The sun gives people Vitamin-D through the skin. we are pretty even here.
http://health.usnews.com...

2.) Without wind or insects, plants are screwed. Bugs like honeybees spread pollen, thus letting plants reproduce. But what happens if bugs were to disappear? People don't need wind or bugs to reproduce. Plants do. Take away both and plants will not be able to reproduce. This happens all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

3.) Not all human homes or structures are naturally made. First world nations like America have sky scrapers made of steel. Some second/third world buildings are also made out of bricks or adobe. Bricks are made out of clay and adobe is made out of mud. sometimes they add straw, though, but that's not the point.

4.) People can survive in just as many environments as plants. So we are pretty much equal on this.

5.) Plants, (except for trees) are exponentially smaller then people, so more of them can fit in a smaller space.
However, people can willingly move so we have plenty of space for each other. Plants can't do this and end up crowding each other in small spaces.

6.) Not true actually. Recently, algae was moved from the plant kingdom and into the marine kingdom. shrimp eat the algae, fish eat the shrimp, and we eat the fish. So while it is true that people would go a bit hungry, (especially the pansy vegetarians), the human race wouldn't go extinct, as we would simply eat more fish.

7.) Plants do soak carbon dioxide, but Co2 isn't the only cause of global warming. Methane gas, for example, makes up approximately 1% of the atmosphere, but makes up 7% of green house gasses responsible for global warming. Given enough time, plants can reduce the amount of Co2 in the air, but not completely eliminate it, as plants also release CO2 as well as mammals. Not to mention the amount of trapped methane gas underwater trapped as air pockets. If something, say an earthquake were to release it, the amount of methane release would dwarf all the Co2 and literally burn the planet. And plants don't soak up methane like Co2.
http://www.livescience.com...

8.) No argument here. Most plants do create cloths and medicine. But not all of it. Insulin, for example, was first derived from pig pancreases. so we have equal amounts of sources from natural and non-organic places to get medicine: clothes like nylon: non natural houses, like stone houses: and non-plant life we can eat, like fish.

9.) True, most ecosystems would collapse, and it would be catastrophic. HOWever, if people disappeared, the end result would still be the same. The ecosystem would still collapse, as no one would be able to manage it, and take care of it.
For example, we have hunting season to help control deer population. If we can make it stay the same, there would be equally proportional prey to predators. If there is more prey then food, everybody starves. however, if we make sure the amount of prey is less then the amount of food, then everybody gets to eat and not die of starvation. Anther example is during winter. People often leave bird feed out to feed them. If people suddenly stopped feeding the birds during winter, they would die off from starvation and the cold from not having enough calories to stay warm. In turn, the birds prey would multiply, then eat all the food, then they would all die of starvation as well.

10.) Plants aren't the only organisms able to regenerate limbs. For example, there are lizards, planarians, sea cucumbers, sharks, spiders, sponges, and starfish. All these can regenerate something. Lizards regrow limbs, sea cucumbers can clone themselves if cut into multiple pieces, sharks regrow lost teeth, spiders regrow missing legs, you can cut a sponge in half and it'll regrow, and then you can cut the arms off a starfish and the severed limbs will regrow into clones of the original fish.
http://www.factmonster.com...

You won't actually believe how hard it was to find the few sources I have. Especially the ones that are neutral and not extreme liberal or conservative. Hopefully the ones I have are neutral. Anyway, The qualities humans have are what makes us special and because we are complex creatures. Plants, they can't decide if they die or not. People can decide for the plants whether to kill plants or not. And what about True A.I? The day will come when we become technologically advanced enough to make true A.I. A true A.I has all of these features. A true A.I can think sententiously, it can ponder, it can make independent decisions, it can feel emotions. Basically, True A.I have all the features people have, yet they would be more advanced then us. Even though they have the same psychology as us humans, they would be Superior then plants in every way. If what you say about plants being superior to people because they don't have thoughts or emotions, then how and why would a sentient computer program be Superior to simple organic plant life?
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for that response.
I'll address Con's points this round.

I had mentioned plants' superior ability to produce their own food simply from sunlight, which would eliminate world hunger if humans had that superiority.

Con attempts to "disprove" that idea:
"The sun gives people Vitamin-D through the skin. we are pretty even here."

My response:
Con, vitamin D is not enough to maintain homeostasis in humans. Plants literally create food for immediate consumption, inside of their bodies, using only photons from the sun; humans CANNOT accomplish this superiority.
This speaks to plants' ability to eat a nearly infinite source of food without any help from external organisms.

Con, how are humans and plants "pretty even" on photosynthesis?
If they were even, humans wouldn't need groups like Feed America, because even the impoverished hungry people can stand outside in the sun.
http://www.fpsa.org...

Pretty even on photosynthesis?
Come on Con.

Con continues:
"Bugs like honeybees spread pollen, thus letting plants reproduce. But what happens if bugs were to disappear?"

My response:
I already mentioned and sourced that plants can use the wind for pollination...you ok Con?
Without bugs, plants have wind for pollination.

Con furthers:
"People don't need wind or bugs to reproduce. Plants do. Take away both and plants will not be able to reproduce. This happens all the time."

My response:
Yeah, people don't need something as simple and ubiquitous as wind to reproduce, rather people must find a willing sexual partner/sperm donor/egg donor which are not only limited resources, they are far from ubiquitous; plants are superior reproducers who need not rely on a such an uncertain acquisition.

Yes, taking away wind and bugs would eliminate reproduction for plants, but if we're seriously exercising this hypothetical case of "no wind or bugs" then humans have already died.
No wind would mean that there is either no air or no air density fluctuations, both of which would kill most life on the planet, especially humans, eliminating their ability to reproduce however, under water plants could still survive briefly and continue to reproduce.
The idea of there being no bugs wouldn't effect underwater plants, so they could still reproduce.

Con asserts:
"Not all human homes or structures are naturally made."

My response:
Con, are some human homes supernaturally made? I don't follow this point by Con.
Steel, clay, and mud are ALL natural...how do you reconcile this Con?

Also, given what I think Con was trying to point out, that not all structures are made of plant matter, Con admits that in fact some homes are made of plant matter, so Con concedes the point that without plants, those "some homes" couldn't exist, speaking to those homes' residents' contingency on plants to maintain homeostasis with shelter.

Con mentions:
"People can survive in just as many environments as plants."

My response:
Con, you mean like how humans can survive in an underwater environment, just like aquatic plants?
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu...

Or how humans can survive in environments of volcanic byproducts?
http://www.kidsgeo.com...

Con, humans simply do not survive underwater or on active volcanoes for extended periods of time, while plants can survive generation after generation underwater or connected to active volcanoes, so we're not "pretty much equal on this;" plants are superior survivors to humans in extreme climates.

Con adds:
"Plants, (except for trees) are exponentially smaller then people, so more of them can fit in a smaller space."

My response:
Yeah, that's why they can reproductively dominate many ecosystems...humans, less so.

Con then adds:
"People can willingly move so we have plenty of space for each other."

My response:
Moving requires energy, and needing space speaks to an inadequacy in maintaining homeostasis. Humans require space to successfully reproduce, but "having plenty of space" isn't even an issue for plants, while it is pretty crucial for humans; humans remain inferior organisms for needing so much space.

Con continues:
"Algae was moved from the plant kingdom and into the marine kingdom, so while it is true that people would go a bit hungry, [without plants] (especially the pansy vegetarians), the human race wouldn't go extinct, as we would simply eat more fish."

My response:
Without underwater plants, the animals that would otherwise eat the underwater plants would then begin eating the algae.
Con, what happens if exponentially more organisms are consuming only algae instead of plants?
Algae would be eliminated by over consumption, shrimp would no longer have food and would perish, so fish would no longer be able to eat shrimp and would perish, and as the chain continues, humans would run out of their source of food from animals; human survival is contingent on plants, despite recent classifications of algae as non-plants.

Con mentions:
"Plants do soak carbon dioxide, but CO2 isn't the only cause of global warming"

My response:
Con concedes that plants soak up CO2.
Con, can humans soak up CO2 by simply breathing, or is this another ability that reduces one cause of global warming that humans simply cannot do?

Con adds:
"Given enough time, plants can reduce the amount of Co2 in the air, but not completely eliminate it, as plants also release CO2 as well as mammals."

My response:
"Yes, most plants release carbon dioxide during respiration at night however, plants take up much more carbon dioxide in photosynthesis than they give off in respiration" so CO2 can greatly be reduced simply by a plant's respiration; can humans do that?
https://www.arm.gov...

Con points out:
"Most plants do create cloths and medicine. But not all of it. Insulin, for example, was first derived from pig pancreases."

My response:
Do pigs eat plants?
Then pig products are contingent on plants.
Humans use aspirin to stop headaches and in some cases prevent a heart attack; this comes from the willow tree.
http://www.nobelprizes.com...

Con says:
"if people disappeared, the end result would still be the same. The ecosystem would still collapse, as no one would be able to manage it, and take care of it."

My response:
The last common ancestor for plants lived around 1.6 billion years ago.
https://www.quora.com...

The last common ancestor for primates lived around 65 million years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Hey Con, were ecosystems collapsing for 1.5 billion years without primates and humans?
Con, who was managing the ecosystems pre primates?
I imagine the same type of management could currently occur without humans, unless you can give some reason why that management didn't happen for 1.5 billion years or so.
Same thing with birds; birds have been on earth way longer than humans and were thriving without humans feeding them bird seed.

Con tries to add to the discussion:
"Plants aren't the only organisms able to regenerate limbs"

My response:
So?
Can humans regenerate vital appendages?
Then other organisms' abilities are irrelevant to this discussion. Plants can regenerate appendages, and humans cannot, period; plants are superior organisms.

Con mentions:
"The qualities humans have are what makes us special and because we are complex creatures"

My response:
Plants are complex multi-cellular organisms that can literally turn light into food; sounds much more special to me.

Con then says:
"Plants, they can't decide if they die or not. People can decide for the plants whether to kill plants or not."

My response:
Even if every human on earth were to kill hundreds of plants each, it wouldn't even make a dent in the number of plants, not plant species, that exist on earth, which again speaks to plants' overall survival superiority.

I refuse to address Con's arguments about AI having superior features, because AI is neither a plant nor a human nor an organism, thus is irrelevant to this discussion's topic of organismic superiority.

On to you Con.
raskuseal

Con

Good lord, man! i just had deja vu there while reading your side. I swear that's the indoctrination speech for children of the corn. Do try to notice that you are taking several, if not most of my side of the debate way out of context.

For the first part, we both need sunlight to survive. That was the idea. If there were no sunlight, both people and plants would die. If we both benefit or suffer drawbacks from the same thing, then we are even.

This part is actually pretty stupid. There are such days where there are no wind. There can be an atmosphere, but no wind if the temperature is right. In fact, do you know what causes wind? Wind is caused by different temperature zones. Hot air rises, cold air sinks. If there is hot air in one spot, and cold air in another, the air moves to balance the temperature out. When it moves, wind is created. If the temperature is even everywhere, then there is no wind.

For the houses not being naturally made... Natural means it was produced by the environment. Steel and mud are not natural because they are not organic. Plants are natural because they are living. If a building is made out of steel, it is not a natural house. If a building is made out of organic matter, then it is a natural building. That was the idea.

(Facepalm)
Submarines. Fallout shelters. Bunkers. International Space Station. People can survive underwater or underground, given they have the proper housing.
People can destroy an entire ecosystem if we willed it. Plants can"t destroy an ecosystem even though they constantly try. Having space is actually very important for plants to strive in any environment. If people are far apart, they can move closer. If plants are far apart, oh well. They're screwed. Not to mention gardens. Gardeners have to pull weeds out in order for their plants, like flowers, to live, and not get choked by weeds. Going by your logic, people are superior to plants because we can exist in outer space, while plants can"t.

For marine life, we would continue to farm them like we usually do. Some people would starve, but others would still have a constant source of food they farmed themselves.

For your spaz about CO2, I am still trying to comprehend your diarrhea of the mouth. It's just filler text because you have a weak argument, or because you didn't know what to put there. Either way, very poor sportsmanship.

Pigs are omnivores. Do you know what that mean? Probably not, so I will explain it. Omnivores eat everything. People are Omnivores because we eat both plants and meat. Pigs can exist on meat. Really gotta use your brain sometimes. For headaches, aspirin isn't the only solution. Headaches can be cause by a lack of fresh air or from dehydration. So, to help a headache, simply drink water or go outside.

Yes. Yes they were. Ecosystems were collapsing over 1.5 billion years ago.
We have the great oxygenation event, for example. Caused by primitive bacteria, It gave way to oxygen breathing life. When the primitive bacterium created the great oxygenation catastrophe, it killed roughly little more then 90% of all established life on earth. The bacteria used photosynthesis to create oxygen. So plants aren"t the only ones using photosynthesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

When people lose limbs or organs, we can replace them. Have you heard of 3D printing? Scientist are developing a way to custom print working organs for people. If we lose an arm or leg, we can replace it with a mechanical prosthetic. People do actually regenerate pretty much everything EVERY DAY. People regenerate new skin every few days. People regenerate organs cells when they get worn out. People regenerate cells for literally everything in their body on a daily bases. So to say that people can"t regenerate anything is an extremely stupid statement. Not to mention that plants can"t regrow entire lost appendages. If you cut a leaf off, it won"t regrow. Plants don't regenerate period. If a part of it gets cut off, it focuses its efforts on the remaining parts.
http://www.cnn.com...

Just because something does not sound special to you does not mean that it isn't special. People are the only sentient organisms on planet earth. That"s out of what seems like an infinite amount of other living organisms. Going by your logic again, People are extremely complex. More complex then plants. Which means that people are superior to plants.

People can make a massive dent in plant life. We have too, actually, for use in warfare. Vietnam, The V.C are hiding in the jungle and we can"t flush them out. An airstrike delivers a payload of Agent Orange. The entire forest within the blast radiance is flattened to a muddy plain. That"s one example of how destroyed thousands of plants in less then a day. Anther example is deforestation. Everyday, thousands of trees are cut down. That's just from a few small logging teams. If there were thousands more people cutting wood, we would effetely destroy ecosystem after ecosystem.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...

About the A.I... If people are supposedly inferior to plants, then why can we build something superior to plants in every sense of the word? It is not irrelevant because people build A.I's, not plants. A.I's are designed to think and act like people. The only difference between humans and A.I's is that people are living flesh, and A.I's are digital. So it's completely fallacious to think that it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Now that I have that hammered out, I have to say that this is not about whether people are better then plants, but to negate your side, because people and plants are equal. If we keep on countering each others rebuttals, the end result will just be a stalemate. So lets move on to something else. And lets continue having a civil debate. Good luck and good sportsmanship.
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Props to Con for the children of the corn indoctrination reference; I genuinely laughed at that...well done Con.

Given that organisms react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis, per the definitions of this debate, plants are superior organisms to humans, because...

1. Plants use tropisms to REACT TO STIMULI by differential cell growth expending less energy than humans to accomplish the same stimuli detection task.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

2. Plants REPRODUCE so efficiently and so self-sufficiently, that even if there are no other living organisms present, plants can viably reproduce millions of offspring with the mere help of the wind, and the un-germinated seeds can sometimes last up to 8 years and still be viable for reproduction; any human "seed" dies within 3 days of being in an atmosphere other than the inside of a woman.

3. Plants GROW and "can regenerate all body parts from precursor cells...many trees, for example, can be cut off at the ground and, in due course, sprouts appear at the margins of the stump...these go on to develop new stems, leaves, and flowers." If this were true with humans, we wouldn't have amputees from trauma.
http://biology-pages.info...

4. Plants MAINTAIN HOMEOSTASIS with water, nitrogenous soil, and sun, which are abundant and ubiquitous resources, while humans are incapable of directly extracting metabolizable energy from the largest source of energy in our solar system (the sun), and, as a result, humans must go to far greater lengths to simply consume energy.

Humans are also incapable of utilizing the most abundant gas in our atmosphere (nitrogen), a necessary component for cell generation in all animals, without consuming plants directly or indirectly, which indicates humans' utter dependence on their superiors, plants.

I think these reasons adequately affirm that plants are superior organisms to humans.

But Con doesn't seem to see it that way.

Con reasons:
"If there were no sunlight, both people and plants would die. If we both benefit or suffer drawbacks from the same thing, then we are even."

My response:
How does sharing a benefit and a drawback make humans and plants even with respects to photosynthesis?
Shouldn't we be measuring the extent of benefit for each?
Humans can't metabolize the sun's energy, and plants can.
Humans get vitamin D from the sun, and plants get metabolizable energy that directly or indirectly fuels nearly all life on earth.
Plants are winning the photosynthesis battle.

Con had originally said:
"Without wind...plants are screwed."

Thinking that this hypothetical case was implying a total lack of wind..

I had responded:
No wind would mean that there is either no air or no air density fluctuations, both of which would kill most life on the planet.

So Con got angry and said:
"This part is actually pretty stupid. There are such days where there are no wind."

My response:
Yeah, so Con refuted that plants can reproduce simply with the help of the wind by saying:
"Without wind, plants are screwed, because there are such days where there is no wind."

Um, ok.
Is Con saying that on some days plants are temporarily screwed with respects to reproduction?
Without "no wind" being permanent, plants aren't screwed, because wind will eventually occur after a day or so.

So, this part IS actually pretty stupid...Con tried to negate plants' superiority over humans in using the wind for reproduction by claiming that when wind is temporarily halted, for those moments, plants cannot reproduce with the help of the wind.
Con were you reading your own argument when you said "This part is actually pretty stupid?"

Con then tries to get bold:
"In fact, do you know what causes wind? Hot air rises, cold air sinks."

My response:
You mean like the "air density fluctuations" that I mentioned 3rd round, Con?
Why did you feel the need to "teach" me about density, when I had already mentioned it?
Lame.

Despite Con's and my disagreement about what "natural" means, buildings that are made with steel still have wood inside their structures, from studs behind drywall, to doors throughout the building.

Now, I had mentioned that plants can survive generation after generation, successfully living and reproducing underwater and on volcanoes, and I sourced both of those claims, but you know how Con is...

Con replies:
"(Facepalm) Submarines. Fallout shelters. Bunkers. International Space Station. People can survive underwater or underground, given they have the proper housing."

My response:
(Back of Con's headpalm) Hey Con, have ANY humans EVER reproduced generation after generation, maintained homeostasis, and thrived permanently underwater or on active volcano byproducts?
This is the actual case for plants, and isn't a viable possibility for humans, because of humans' vulnerability to water and high temperatures, like that of volcanoes; plants are superior survivors.

Con tries again:
"Going by your logic, people are superior to plants because we can exist in outer space, while plants can"t."

My response:
Plants CAN exist in outer space.
https://www.nasa.gov...

Con gets weird:
"For your spaz about CO2, I am still trying to comprehend your diarrhea of the mouth. It's just filler text because you have a weak argument, or because you didn't know what to put there. Either way, very poor sportsmanship."

My response:
Con, you attempted to mitigate plants' ability to reduce CO2 by claiming that they release CO2, so I sourced and explained that plants take in way more CO2 then they ever release, which supports the claim of an effective reduction of CO2 by plants...and humans cannot accomplish this feat simply through respiration, because they are inferior to plants.

Con continues:
"People can make a massive dent in plant life...everyday, thousands of trees are cut down...that's just from a few small logging teams...if there were thousands more people cutting wood, we would effetely destroy ecosystem after ecosystem."

My response:
I had pointed out that if every human on earth killed 100 plants each, then it wouldn't make a dent in total plant life, indicating plants' reproductive dominance over humans; I was trying to show how much of a gap there was with respects to human/plant population.

Con used this to try to show humans' superiority with regards to destroying things, or destructive dominance, but destroying things isn't really a part of being a successful organism, rather it's a compensation for needing so many limited resources to the point that destruction becomes humans' only option to maintain homeostasis.

Also, if thousands of trees are being cut down EVERYDAY, as Con claims, then why do plants STILL outnumber us Con?
What if thousands of humans were killed every day...how long until all humans were gone?
We kill all of these trees, yet plants are still reproductively superior...interesting.

Con said insulin came from pigs, so I asked Con if pigs consumed plants, and Con tried to get bold again and said:
"Pigs...and people are omnivores because we eat both plants and meat. Pigs can exist on meat. Really gotta use your brain sometimes. "

My response:
Wow!
Omnivores are secondary consumers, which means they have to eat primary consumers or producers.
Hey Con, where do primary consumers, which is the meat that both pigs and humans consume, get their energy?
Maybe you "really gotta use your brain sometimes."

Con, the terrestrial animal whose meat that pigs and humans consume has either directly or indirectly consumed plants, so if you're claiming that pigs' metabolism is not contingent on plants, then you don't understand energy flow through the food chain.

Yes, I know what an omnivore is, and I understand that omnivores are contingent on plants, thanks to the food chain.

Con adds:
"The bacteria used photosynthesis to create oxygen. So plants aren"t the only ones using photosynthesis."

My response:
Again with the irrelevance...Con, can humans photosynthesize light into sugar?
Then bacteria's photosynthetic properties are irrelevant, because bacteria are just another example of organisms that are superior to humans with regards to metabolizing sunlight.

Con really tries to make a point:
"When people lose limbs or organs, we can replace them...scientist are developing a way to custom print working organs for people."

My response:
Yeah, well while people are futzing around trying to develop a way to print organs, plants have been regenerating limbs for their entire existence; this indicates that plants are in fact ahead of humans on this ability.

Con continues:
"to say that people can"t regenerate anything is an extremely stupid statement"

My response:
Con you are dishonest, I never once stated that, check the debate.
I asked you if humans can regenerate VITAL APPENDAGES.
The answer is no, and replacing is not regenerating; this shows humans trying to compensate for not being able to regenerate limbs, while plants need not compensate for such, because they regenerate vital appendages.

Then Con gets errant:
"Plants don't regenerate period."

My response:
B.S. Con.
http://biology-pages.info...

You can cut grass over and over again, and what happens?
Caterpillars engorge on leaves all of the time, and leaves regenerate.
Plants CAN regenerate Con, and this makes them superior organisms to humans.

Con gets wrong again:
People are the only sentient organisms on planet earth.

My response:
"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors."
http://fcmconference.org...

Yep, some non-human animals are conscious.

I affirm that, as an organism, plants are superior to humans.
raskuseal

Con

As I stated earlier, a tragedy befell some friends of mine. They were in an auto accident, and two of them didn't make it. because of this, I have run out of steam, and so I will not be making any new arguments on my side of the debate. I will just summarize my side of the debate.

Both people and plants need sunlight to survive. If the sun were to disappear, People and plants would die off by the millions. Both plants and people need the sun.

People and animals eat plants. The only way plants can "Eat" In a very loose sense of the term is if the organism is already dead, and there is plant life nearby. People can also survive in as many places as plants. So naturally people are on top of the food chain.

People aren't solely dependent on plants for everything. People can eat fish, which eat algae, which is photosynthetic and not plant life. Not all medicine and clothing comes from plants either.

I had a fairly good time debating. I wished this didn't have to end on this way with what happened, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. On to you now, Magicain'treal. Good luck and good sportsmanship.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
It's all good man, you've got bigger fish to fry...also there were no round rules, so it has to be alright with me.
Posted by raskuseal 1 year ago
raskuseal
I'm just gonna sum up my side for the final round, If that's alright with you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I'm so sorry for your loss, and losing a ten-year old is a tragedy.
I totally understand, and no worries about "losing your cool" I actually found most of it to be funny.

It sounds like you have a lot to deal with, and remember that this debate has no round rules, so not posting last round shouldn't be considered bad conduct by voters.

Sorry again for your losses, I can't imagine that type of anguish.
Posted by raskuseal 1 year ago
raskuseal
I'll have to apologize for me losing my cool. I have been under a lot of stress lately. last week, a friend's family was in an auto accident. Perhaps you heard of them, as they were on Fox 17 a couple of days ago. They were the Kubisiacs. They lost traction on black ice and got t-boned by a truck. Their 10-year old sister, Emily, died instantly, my friend peter died the other day after being in a brain dead coma for a few days, and his other sister, Erica has a few broken bones and a concision. I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond, although I'll try and get my last round in before my time frame is up.
Posted by raskuseal 1 year ago
raskuseal
Way I see it, plants need people, and people need plants. We are pretty much dead-even on everything, as we can counter some special ability that the other has. For plants, they just need sunlight and water to survive. People need water, food, shelter, and companionship to survive. So it looks like plants are better, right? Nope. If there was a drought or some other disaster where the plant was, it would die from a lack of mobility. However, if there was a disaster where the person was, they could simply relocate and get food someplace else. So like I said, people and plants are pretty much even in everything.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
We go bye bye, carbon dioxide can be produced by other means, in fact there are certain fungi that create carbon dioxide, plants go bye bye, well we still have the oceans, so this is irrelevant to the debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Who needs who to continue breathing?
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Best argument for Con: Who steps on who?
Posted by talmid 1 year ago
talmid
Does a plant need people? Of course not. Does a person need plants? Obviously. Thus, you can conclude that technically, plants are superior to people.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Ill get it in tonite, sorry, Ive been swamped at work
No votes have been placed for this debate.