Should all life be eliminated?
I accept this debate and wish my opponent the best of debates.
I would like to advance a few definitions to establish that this debate is about whether or not we should “Completely remove the entirety of animals, plants, and everything that is not inorganic.” If my opponent disagrees with this clarification please let him state so.
Eliminate - Completely remove or get rid of.
All - The entirety of.
Life - The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Since Con posted but a short argument for his first round, I will try to keep things brief.
I believe that we should eliminate organic life and establish a digital reality in order to remove the bad aspects of this world and become more near to perfection.
“Digitaaal.” - Shangy
1.) Organic life is the old way of life. We live in a modern world, we need a modern way of living. Digitaaal.
2.) Organic life is imperfect. We have war, murder, hate, and poverty. These things would not be present in an electronic life. Digitaaal.
3.) Organic life is unsatisfying. Unless you are wealthy, intelligent, attractive, AND popular you are most likely in some way unsatisfied with your life. In an electronic world, you can be whatever you wish to be. Digitaaal.
Looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Digitaaal.
jppal67 forfeited this round.
What is the point of having a world with no life?
"Digitaaal" beings have to be programmed, and if the humans are programming them, who's to stop the humans from programming the robots with hate/war/murder?
There is no point in having a world with nobody living on it.
I thank Con for posting their rebuttal. Since my argument contained my rebuttal (life is not "the best thing ever" since it is plagued with "war, murder, hate, and poverty" as well as unsatisfaction) I will post my counter-rebuttal this round and concede the final round if necessary.
Counter-Rebuttal: What is the point of having a world with no life?
1.) What is the point of having a world with life?
By Christianity's perspective, life is just an endless cycle of birth, conversion, and death that will eventually end by God's hand anyway. If all life is going to be ended anyway, why shouldn't we "pull the plug" and end life? In fact, since God is all-knowing, he already knows that we are going to end life and the prophecies of "The End" predicted this already. Our souls would all go to heaven (or hell) and our digital selves would be able to go on living their merry lives.
By an atheist's perspective, we are just another step in the ladder of evolution. If we could speed up evolution's process and become a more "evolved" species through digitalisation (I'm sure that is a word, lol), why shouldn't we?
Counter-Rebuttal: What is to prevent human corruption in the coding of a digital world?
1.) It couldn't be any worse.
If you have something that is already broken, shouldn't you at least try to fix it?
2.) There are still people with standards.
We would have to do our best to get trustworthy fellows coding the software. They could possibly even code up some sort of anti-virus to detect and delete any attempt to sabotage the code.
Counter-Rebuttal: There is no point to a world with nobody living on it.
1.) If you are referring to the actual chunk of rock known as earth, see: Mercury, Pluto, Jupiter, etc.
There needs not be a point to a chunk of rock.
2.) The digital world would still contain "us".
Our consciousnesses would be retained in the digital world, they would just have the negative parts removed. We would still be able to experience life but without the need for things such as war, sleep, food, or oxygen.
Looking forward to Con's counter-rebuttal and closing statements.
1. God will eventually end life.
If you are using this as a point, you should know that God does not want humans to mess with His plan. It is not in His plan for mankind to become extinct and I personally think that He would be disappointed, because we would basically be ending what He wanted to happen prematurely.
2. There are still people with standards.
Who's to say the people with standards are going to be the ones programming the robots? There is corruption in the world now, and the robots could be corrupt.
3. The robots would be us without the bad stuff.
Going back to the God point:
He designed mankind to NOT be perfect. If you took away the problems, you would be taking away His plan of Free Will. It would also be putting down what He did: sending His son to save all humans. If you took away the flaws, there would be no need for saving people. It would basically make God mad and not be happy with what happened to the world that He created.
I thank Con for posting their counter-rebuttal. I have decided to use the final round for CCR and closing statements since Con forfeited Round 2.
CCR: God doesn't want humans messing with his plan.
1.) Since God knows everything, that means if we (humans) were to end all life it was God's plan all along for us to do so.
CCR: The programmers of the digital world could be corrupt.
1.) Again, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything but we owe it to ourselves to at least try. If the removal of all flaws fails, we are really no worse off than we were when we were alive.
CCR: God designed mankind not to be perfect and changing that would be going against free will and against God's plan.
1.) Free will is an illusion. However, this point is for a different debate and I will not argue into it here.
2.) See my first CCR.
3.) The digital versions of us would not have souls so there would be no need for them to be "saved". Religion could be completely removed from the new world and nothing would be any worse off.
While my opponent argues that my proposed digital world could be just as messed up as our organic one and that it is going against God's plan, I say that what we would do was part of God's plan (also, since this is not necessarily a debate strictly from a Christian perspective, my point on the upgrade system of evolution still stands) and that we should do what we can to try to improve the world even if there is a chance that we will not succeed.
I hope that voters will see that my proposed digital world has a definite chance of being better than our organic world and that they will recognize that Con's "Life is the best thing ever." stance is flawed.
|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:||0||1|