The Instigator
xenofied
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The universe cares about human beings

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 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 59836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

xenofied

Pro

Definitions-

Universe = nature, the economy of everything + the economy of every nothing

Care = promotes the continued life of

it = The Universe

dead = extinct

My argument -

The universe cares about Humans because humans are not dead right now.

1st and only supporting point -

Humans exist within the Universe.
KhalifV

Con

Now pro has taken a really really cheap approach to this debate.
Pro has attempted to redefine everything.

Let me lay down the actual definitions of "universe" and "care".

Universe: " The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents ofintergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Similar terms include thecosmos, the world, reality, and nature. "

Care:" the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something. "

Contention 1: Conscious Intentionality

The problem with the resolution is that, in order for something to "Care", the something must be conscious. If not, the result is absurdity.
Pro's argument is basically as follows:
P1) Things that care about humans promote human life
P2) Houss promote human life
C1) Houses care about humans.
Well no, houses are not in the business of caring, we have just evolved in a way to utilize houses.

"Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense ofselfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

"A mind /G2;ma=8;nd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic of humans, but which also may apply to other life forms."



Per my prior definition, we are aware that consciousness implies awareness. What produces awareness? Awareness has its origin in the insular cortex. The right anterior insula aids interoceptive awareness .
How can one measure self-awareness? Well it's trivially easy, you just place a mirror in front of an animal and if they recognize themself, they are self-aware. Simple right? Wrong, only ten animals are reported to have passed this test, they are listed as follows:




















        1. Humans




        1. Orangutans




        1. Chimpanzees




        1. Gorillas




        1. Bottlenose Dolphins




        1. Elephants




        1. Orcas




        1. Bonobos




        1. Rhesus Macaques




        1. European Magpies







Why Consciousness Is A Brain Function: The brain is responsible for all of the functions that are associated with consciousness. As for as we know, objects without brains, don't have the capacity to do any of the aforementioned qualities(TO ALL YOU BOTANIST: shut up, I know plants do some of these things without brains, i'm trying to make a point.) Furthermore, the mere fact that a physical event that effects the brain can render you unconscious, is compelling evidence that consciousness is essentially physical and related to the brain.




In order to fulfill the BoP, pro must prove the universe is consciously promoting human life.

Contention 2: The universe, on balance, is not conducive to human life.








0.03% of the universe can substain human life.
There are roughly 8.74 million species.
1/874,000,000=1.144165e^-9.
If the universe cared about human life, I'd imagine we'd comprise more of the universe than that.
>99.9% of the universe is not conducive to human life.

To say the universe cares about human life, because a small percent of the universe can support life, is to commit the composition fallacy. Pro is arguing as follows:
P1) If the universe can support human life, then it cares about human life.
P2) 0.03% of the universe can support human life
C) The universe cares about human life.
This is not valid, because just because something is true for a part of something, does not mean it's true for the whole.

Conclusions:
1. If the universe is not conscious, it's not caring.
2. >99.9% of the universe is not conducive to human life.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.plosbiology.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...




Debate Round No. 1
xenofied

Pro

xenofied forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
xenofied

Pro

xenofied forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Semantics don't work when you instigate.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
You defined 'care' like someone with an agenda beyond fairness. Caring involved conscious actions, A rock doesn't care about an insect because it gives it shelter, and the universe doesn't care because it facilitates life, that is just going overboard with the word.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
xenofiedKhalifVTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
xenofiedKhalifVTied
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 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: FF, and Pro probably was trying to set up a semantic argument rather than an actual logical argument.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
xenofiedKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for Con's unrebutted case. It's unfortunate that Pro decided to waste Con's time.