The Instigator
Banditforlife
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Sahaj
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Should we give up on severely endangered species?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Sahaj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,192 times Debate No: 19279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Banditforlife

Con

It is morally unjust to give up on species deemed "severely endangered," such as the giant panda or tiger, because it is mostly our fault they are such. We as humans have destroyed their habitat, demolished their breeds for our own gain, and therefore we should take responsibility to correct our wrong, no matter the cost.
Sahaj

Pro

I accept. I presume I am arguing that we should give up on endangered species.
Debate Round No. 1
Banditforlife

Con

Yes you are. And since I have already posted part of my debate, I will let you post yours without proceeding on mine.
Sahaj

Pro

Thank you for letting me catch up. I agree that it is our fault, but now it is already too late for most endangered species, so why should we actively try to keep them alive? Chances are they will die out anyway, so why should we waste rescources to try to save them? There will then be more land and rescources for us. I know what we have done to them is wrong, but it is too late to right it now. We should let them die out peacefully.
Debate Round No. 2
Banditforlife

Con

You're welcome.
You state point blank the reason most of the species on the endangered species list are there in the first place, "There will then be more land and resources for us." or in other words, human greed. We are the reason they are on the endangered species list, and, therefore, "our" resources should help them to recover from the place we put them. We as humans forget the main fact of Mother Earth, that ALL the organisms on it are life, and as such we need to cooperate and help maintain the other organisms on it. Without the other animal, and plant, life on this earth, we would not exist. What we humans have done to the poor creatures we live along side of is much the same as a child growing up, and then shooting his/her mother dead just so he/she can have her house and whatever possessions she may have saved up in her life. How can it be said that resources which we claim as ours shouldn't belong to the creatures we walk into the homes of and kill for our own gain?
"We should let them die out peacefully." That statement is a bit laughable, because the creatures aren't going peacefully, they are going painfully, starving, getting shot but not dying right away, being locked in cages and cut up while still alive, and many other horrible ways to go. It would be more correct to have said let us turn our backs on our wrongs and hope we forget they happened. We cannot do that. We must do everything in our power to correct human fallacy toward our fellow animal. We are homo-sapien erectus, and just because we have an imagination doesn't make us special, it makes us blind, it makes us want to expand into places that aren't ours. The human population has reached 7 Billion people on earth as of October 31, 2011, and yet we still claim that deer and other wildlife that is only densely populating small areas is over populated, and we keep growing in numbers. It seems to me the reverse is in need of happening, we need to populate less space and let nature re-structure itself.
In Conclusion, it may be argued that all that those creatures might have gone extinct anyways, but who is to say which would have? for example, there is only 1 breed of rhino left in the wild, and the rhino is a creature that has survived since pre-historic times. Would it be just to say they were over-due? I think not. I think it would be logical to say we are over-due for a wake-up call that may come too late.
Sahaj

Pro

You misunderstand my argument. I didn't say we should ignore or advocate poaching, hunting and use of animal parts for medicinal purposes, or generally harm animals, indeed I think we shiuld crack down on these activities and serve harsh penalties to people who do these things. I'm saying there is nothing we can do anymore. Even if we breed endangered species, it would have to be done in captivity, which is cruel to the animal. Yes, it is wrong that we are encroaching on animal territories, but I am not advocating it. You say that they helped us survive. What has the Rhino or the Siberian Tiger done to help humans? Nothing. As you said, there are 7 Billion humans now, and if the endangeres species grow in numbers, there will be no sustenance left for millions of people. It is a choice between simply letting nature take it's course or causing worse crowding in the world. I leave it in the hands of the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kogline 5 years ago
kogline
it'd be like the kid shooting his mom and dad if his parents were evil abusive psychopaths. mother nature is a heartless b!tch, stop worshipping her.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting topic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
BanditforlifeSahajTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a goodpoint, you can't put that genie back in the bottle, or transform the planet back to the way it was hundreds of years ago. There will be a time when humans will be extinct, and there will be no salvation for us.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
BanditforlifeSahajTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 argued a moral obligation without providing a reason for such a moral position. Is-ought problem. Had con started with a "from a utilitarian..." or "from a viture ethics..." or something, it would force Pro to present an alternative ethics system which could then be argued with is better. But simply stating "we have a moral obligation" is not cutting it.