The Instigator
hayabah114
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
connorjfield
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The human being is utterly weak.

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 4 votes the winner is...
connorjfield
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 70479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

hayabah114

Pro

What do I mean by this?

Example: the human being can be killed no matter what. Even if the human is in the most secure place in the world. This is just one example.

The human being is weak. Any reasoning to refute this fact is futile.
connorjfield

Con

It is believed by many that Homo Sapiens have Existed on this planet for around 100,000 years. A species does not survive that long by being "weak".
http://www.nhm.ac.uk...

While human beings may lack the physical strength of many of our animal counterparts, the core strength of mankind is it's mind. People have the ability to use tools, to create buildings, weapons etc to make themselves stronger. This strength of the mind is what has human's atop the food chain despite all it's attempts to wipe itself off the face of the planet. People have been actively fighting and slaughtering each other since mankind came into existence yet we continue to not only survive but to flourish and grow exponentially. This is not the sign of a weak or inferior species.

"The human being can be killed no matter what", this could be said of any living thing. By this logic, it would seem that all living things are "weak". Anything living can be killed anytime, whether by a man with a shotgun, a natural disaster or a natural predator. Life is fragile but that does not make us weak.

A fact is something that has irrefutable evidence supporting it. I am not sure your statement meets that burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
hayabah114

Pro

Nice try but you try to argue using the species of human beings. First off, I am not speaking about the species. Even if I took your argument into consideration, how in the world does just living for hundred thousandth years make human beings contrary to weak. They are smart but still are weak. They have limits. Just because they outsmarted other species on earth does not make them less weak.

It seems that you failed to comprehend the statement. Human beings, left alone, don't know what is good for them. They might all democratically ponder about something and in the end fail to understand the truth. Human beings are weak in that they don't know much. They are ignorant. They are easily deceived. They are easily killed. They are easily shaped into thinking and acting in a particular way. The human being is weak.

Humans are weak because they can be killed no matter what. If that can be said of any living thing, aren't they weak. Let me ask you, why do people die? (give a teleological answer) Assume humans were given the most ideal life; no diseases, no illnesses, no stress, no worries, no hunger and no thirst. Why would they eventually age and die. Is it just a life cycle. Is it natural. If that is the limit of "our" knowledge, that makes "us" ignorant. We humans are weak.

As I told you, this is a fact that you cannot comprehend. Whatever you say is futile. I will appreciate you futile efforts though.
connorjfield

Con

The statement itself was extremely vague as to just what is meant by weak. The statement was that the human being is weak, this generalization infers that you are considering the species as a whole. You also say "we humans are weak" again referring to our species.

The dictionary defines Weak as "lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; lacking physical strength and energy". there have been many examples of real live human beings perform a variety of strenuous and physically demanding tasks completely un assisted. John Holtum for example was able to catch a 20 lb cannonball fired at point blank range as part of a circus act in the 1840's without dying. He was most certainly not weak by any stretch.
http://www.thehumanmarvels.com...

By definition human beings are not weak. If we are not talking about the species as a whole then I am happy to provide individual examples. otherwise I'm not sure what is left.
Debate Round No. 2
hayabah114

Pro

By "weak" I was not talking about the species nor physically. However, even if I considered them, they are weak. You might provide evidence that the strongest human did something incredible, but that is not a proof of human strength. Humans being are weak.

Let me help you because I sympathize for you; for your futile efforts. Answer the question: why do people die? (give a teleological answer). Assume humans were given the most ideal life; no diseases, no illnesses, no stress, no worries, no hunger and no thirst. Why would they eventually age and die.
connorjfield

Con

I would like to stick to the topic which was "human beings are utterly weak" Humans being plural, utterly meaning completely or 100%, and weak meaning lacking in physical strength. If this was not what you meant then this should not have been your statement.

Asking how things die is a distraction from the topic. All living things die eventually, this does automatically equate to them being weak or fragile.

Since you have not cited examples as to how humans are weak by whatever your definition is, I must take your statement at face value. you say humans plural are utterly (completely) and I already defined weak. If you were to take a random sample size of humans you would find that not all are weak.

Again I am taking your statement at face value and going off what evidence and examples have been given.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dela 2 years ago
dela
Pros argument is pretty pathetic

Logic: if something dies, it is weak.

Pro, you are weak.
Posted by connorjfield 2 years ago
connorjfield
Makes sense, I definitely feel like by that point I was just trying to be done haha. Thanks I appreciate that.
Posted by footballchris561 2 years ago
footballchris561
You want an honest opinion? Your arguments and rebuttals were strong while I think expanding a little could have been more helpful.

"If you were to take a random sample size of humans you would find that not all are weak."
You both never argued the semantics of it and had no clear definition and nothing to compare it to. The claim you made about humans not being weak was unjustified as you had nothing to compare your proof too. The fact that you had proof while pros argument was (quoting from UndeniableReality) "pathetic" was enough to win you the debate.

Semantics are arguably the most important part of a debate and it is important to establish them early and sometimes that also needs to be done later in the debate if there are inconsistencies.
Posted by connorjfield 2 years ago
connorjfield
I would appreciate some honest feedback related to spelling and grammar. how can I improve on this? I am always trying to do things better.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Pro, that was pathetic.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Humans are weak because they are not immortal. Okay then.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lol. Pro is so lame. His logic:
Just because something dies, it is weak.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
hayabah114connorjfieldTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to make any reasonable argument for their assertions while attempting to insult Con. Con generously behaves as if Pro were making more reasonable versions of the arguments they were actually making, and refutes them. Completely one-sided. Only Con used sources, and conduct to Con for immature and condescending behaviour from Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
hayabah114connorjfieldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro losses his grasp as he keeps on repeating the same assertion, but with less and less evidence each time, as they are refuted by con's showing that humans are in fact very strong.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
hayabah114connorjfieldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con had sources, so sources to Con.
Vote Placed by footballchris561 2 years ago
footballchris561
hayabah114connorjfieldTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to clearly define their stance as stated by con. Pro made a weak argument and failed to rebut cons arguments properly.