The Instigator
peoplehater22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
toamatt26
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The human race seriously needs to die out.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
toamatt26
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 43491
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

peoplehater22

Pro

The human race has been pillaging and raping the world for its natural resources and native inhabitants (animals) for thousands pf years and i dont see and end to it soon. The humans are too smart to be wiped out, theyll figure a way to make it, The humans just need to go away and leave earth alone. weve already done so much to damage it but it will get worse. Someone needs to do something...
toamatt26

Con

I accept, and believe that the Human race does not need to "seriously ... die out"
Debate Round No. 1
peoplehater22

Pro

What is your premise on these believes? Please provide information as I would greatly like to hear why you don't agree. Humans are torturing and mutilating their own kind and other species for what? What could possibly possess a human to wake up in the morning and go " Gee, Im in a crappy mood today, I think ill kill some innocents or skin an animal alive maybe."
toamatt26

Con

Humanity clearly does not need to die out.
.
.
.
I will start by refuting my opponent's arguments which will include my own arguments.
.
.
"The human race has been pillaging and raping the world for its natural resources and native inhabitants (animals) for thousands pf years and i dont see and end to it soon."

Although my opponent believes this, he or she did not take the idea of "survival of the fittest" into consideration. Survival of the fittest by definition is "the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution." [1] As we can agree, this is clearly an act of nature, and therefore is meant to occur. Through thousands of years, animals and plants have evolved in order to keep their species alive and active. The map below shows the distance that the homo erectus took.








After originating from the dry desserts of Africa, the homo erectus needed to expand in order to let the species flourish. To do this, they went to various parts of the world, all having their advantages and disadvantages. Over time, man began to have a drastic increase in brain size, to cope with all of the events occurring in the Neolithic revolution. While getting to these places, mostly consisting of humid and warm temperatures of around 23.5 deg. N, there was a population increase. In order to feed these new generations, man had to find any ways possible. In order to do this, as the quote in (1) states, organisms need to adapt to their environment. As a result of this, man began to alter the environment to fit their own needs. They began farming and domesticating animals to help them farm. Hundreds of thousands of years later, the Roman empire was very prosperous due to their ability to extract resources such as gold and water, using their engineering superiority to their advantage, having a constant and stable water source, which would be able to provide the entire empire with water. "The Romans constructed numerous aqueducts to bring water from distant sources into their cities and towns, supplying public baths, latrines, fountains and private households. Waste water was removed by complex sewage systems and released into nearby bodies of water, keeping the towns clean and free from effluent. Aqueducts also provided water for mining operations, milling, farms and gardens." [3] Once again, humanity was altering their environment in order to fit their needs. Nowadays, people follow these same rules of humanity, by drilling for resources to help this population increase thrive.. When my opponent states that humanity is extracting resources, it is to help humanity thrive.
.
.
.
.
"The humans are too smart to be wiped out, theyll figure a way to make it, "

As stated in the last refutation, survival of the fittest is an act of nature and should not be altered with. ""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory" [4] My opponent believes that we should alter what nature has planned, to fit his or her wants. The whole idea of survival of the fittest is that a species should adapt to survive any obstacle, which as my opponent states "theyll figure a way to make it,"
.
.
.
.
.
"Someone needs to do something..."

My opponent does not show why or even how he or she is planning on making the human race die out. Any tasks that are pursued have a great chance of endangering other species and the environment as a whole.
.
.
.
.
"Humans are torturing and mutilating their own kind and other species for what?"

My opponent doesn't state how "torturing and mutilating...other species" is morally wrong. Is it morally wrong for a, for instance, a bear to eat a fish? It is all by nature's plans of the system of predator and prey. Humans are by nature a predator, and have adapted to being one after millions of years (stated in first refutation)
.
.
.
.
"... I think ill kill some innocents or skin an animal alive maybe.""
Survival of the fittest states that a species must do any action in order to survive. In this case the person my opponent is referring to killing the animal because of its potential threat to him or her, or because this person needed money to survive, and must kill the certain type of animal for its skin to be sold. For when you stated "kill some innocents," I am inferring that by innocent you mean people. With that said, by that you would be helping your problem of helping the human race die out.
.
.
.
.
I appreciate that my opponent took the time to post his arguments, and hope he will continue to do so next round.
.
.
.
.
.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

.

[2] http://blackhistoryfactorfiction.com...


.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...


.

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
peoplehater22

Pro

I will hand it to my opponent, he/she has done their research. The survival of the fittest is indeed a factor but people dont need to inflict pain and suffering on others to add to a bank that is already full. I can justify someone hunting local wildlife to provide food for their families but stripping millions of animals of their skins every day is greed. To be fair surviving for another day doesn't require slaughtering animals who DON'T pose a threat. If a Bear threatens your home, by all means eliminate it, But it is unacceptable to seek out animals who have done nothing and inflict your malice on them. No it is not immoral for a bear to eat a fish or a lion to kill a gazelle. It is immoral however to bludgeon animals into a state of stun and skin them alive.

Evidence of attrocities commited for greed.
Ps. I am not associated with PETA. Ive enjoyed greatly hearing what you have to think on the matter.
toamatt26

Con

While I do agree with my opponent that SOME, definitely not all, humans pursue actions that endanger the lives of innocent animals, humans also help the animals being abused. Such organizations, such as the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) help prevent these actions from occurring. "The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane laws and share resources with shelters nationwide" [1] Although my opponent's argument about animal abuse and that humanity is the main cause of it, is strong though my opponent relies solely on that single topic. After being refuted, my opponent would have no more arguments to push his case. I enjoyed this debate, and to close, I would thank my opponent for this very interesting debate. Vote con.

[1] www.aspca.org/
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
debatinghoe123
@Otakujordan lol
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Why do we have to die out seriously? Can't I giggle a bit while nuking the world?
Posted by peoplehater22 3 years ago
peoplehater22
You are correct in saying no one owns the earth. You forgot that the planet is a living, breathing thing and in turn owns itself. We are simply tennants.
Posted by rugbypro5 3 years ago
rugbypro5
We have been pillaging the Earth? To pillage means "To rob during wartime." First we are not at war with the Earth. And if we are going to rob the Earth, don't we first need someone/thing to own the Earth? You need first someone to own the earth, otherwise, how can you rob something if it doesn't even belong to anyone? We have been using it's resources and have been returning it right to the Earth, you cannot destroy matter, it's only transferred into something else. Isn't this a pointless debate?
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Interesting premise. I look forward to seeing you guys argue your positions.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 3 years ago
debatinghoe123
peoplehater22toamatt26Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I did not "agree" with pro at the beginning, just thought it was interesting so I give him that. Conduct is the same, no one forfeit. Itwas a positive debate for both complimented each other. Pro made a few spelling mistakes in round 2. Con had more sources, but overall I liked the resolution, but hoped that Pro would put more effort into his arguments. By the way, did anyone notice that Pro's name is "peoplehater22" and makes a debate about ending the human race? Lol.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
peoplehater22toamatt26Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was right, to begin with. He had better conduct, used better spelling & grammar, made much more convincing arguments, and cited sources, which pro did not do. All points to con.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
peoplehater22toamatt26Tied
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 didn't have very good arguments for why humans needed to be eliminated, and at the end even conceded that they don't need to be eliminated but would be nice if they treated other species with respect.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
peoplehater22toamatt26Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set himself up for failure from the start. Proving that the entirety of humanity is a scourge on the world that needs to be eradicated is a difficult task for anyone, and he just doesn't do enough. This requires extensive examples and reasons why we will never become better, and yet most of what I get are assertions. That's simply not sufficient, and Con does a good job refuting what is given.
Vote Placed by msheahan99 3 years ago
msheahan99
peoplehater22toamatt26Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really present much of a case, and although I agree we should treat animals better it doesn't mean that we should just die out, what kind of an idea is that? Con presented good arguments, good responses and a strong case. Con wins.