The Instigator
doubter
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The world is doomed

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 6 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,948 times Debate No: 33540
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (39)
Votes (6)

 

doubter

Pro

First round is for acceptance only.
Only facts count as arguments.
Ragnar

Con

The relatively low BoP is on pro.

I wish pro had answered any of the questions in the comment section, and hope that he will not try for semantics [1]. I assume The World means either the earth, or humanity, or our modern world we live in (in which case us not living to see its end, would mean it is not doomed in any practical way to be measured as a fact). Without a clarified definition of The World, I cannot build an opening case and can only refute his claim. If The World turns out to be a definition without relevance, I encourage a strong vote against pro.

As "only facts count as arguments," I hope for a clean fact for why the world is doomed, that does not fall back on mere theories or religion.

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
doubter

Pro

I am new to DDO, but I have been reading many of the debates and I have observed how many of them are won on semantics.
That's why I decided to make the "facts only" rule. It seems to me that mostly teenagers resort to semantics and
other tricks, rather than facts, to win a debate, that's why I set the debate to 21 and over, so don't be insulted.
I defiantly won't resort to unproved theories or religion, because those aren't facts.

The comment section isn't the debate section, but I'll address the issues in the debate:
First of all, the debate is: "The world is doomed". If there is no Earth for humans to live on,
then humans are also doomed. So if the World is doomed, so is humanity. Even if humans found a way
to live on Mars, that would only prolong the inevitable.

So, let me say why the following can't be crossed out:

1. Nuclear Warfare.
Although the Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War didn't result in nuclear Warfare,
the times we live in now are much different.
There are, in fact, up to 50 nuclear warheads that are missing.
http://www.spiegel.de...

All it would take is one to get into the wrong hands, or even go off by accident, to start a chain of nuclear strikes as a
"defense" to the first one.

2. Meteors and Asteroids
Although the chances of getting hit by a big sized Meteor or Asteroid are slim, eventually one will, indeed hit the Earth.
With out current technology, it would be impossible to stop it from happening. Even if we used nukes to try to blow the
thing up, it would only result in breaking it apart and still having huge chunks hit Earth with major destruction.
http://www.howstuffworks.com...

3. Disease
Even if it's "somewhat possible", it's not "impossible".

Now, lets look at other scenarios:

1. Our Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy in 4 Billion years. This will no doubt cause a catastrophe to
the world.
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com...

2. The End of the Sun
Even before the galaxy collision, in 3.5 Billion years, the Sun will cause all life on Earth to no longer exist.
http://io9.com...

In any case, the world is doomed.

I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I just hope the voters are fair and don't try to use technicalities.
Ragnar

Con

Many things are likely doomed, but as "only facts count as arguments," the world being doomed is far from a fact; anything which is a fact instead of a theory, should easily hold up to rebuttal.

"If there is no Earth for humans to live on, then humans are also doomed. So if the World is doomed, so is humanity."
By this I take pro's definition of The World, to be the planet earth; I will however make secondary points in favor of humanity to maintain a sense of relevance to us; finally I shall attack the sources.

Rebuttals:
1. Nuclear Warfare.
"All it would take is one to get into the wrong hands, or even go off by accident, to start a chain of nuclear strikes as a
'defense' to the first one." In summery a lot of hypotheticals, when he wrote the rule about using only facts. Even his source points out how hard it is for nuclear weapon to go off by any means other than their own control (his source lists many accidents, even armed bomber collisions with zero accidental nuclear detonations...). Pro proposes a Dr Strangelove [2] situation, where there's a doomsday device which will destroy the world if a nuke goes off in the wrong area, and there are zero fail safes on it. This is getting into the area of absurdity. Not to mention all the lost nuclear weapons are useless, unless the Neutron Generators (a component needed to cause the chain reaction) are replaced every few years [3].
  • The World: The earth is 4.5 billion years old, with a surface area of 197 million square miles, and is the most dense planet in our solar system. It has withstood worse conditions than mere nuclear wars.
  • Humanity: The Japanese are the only nation which has suffered nuclear attacks, thus as experts on the subject. With the highest life expectancy of any nation, and 128-million people living on their island [4], it's safe to say the threat of nuclear weapons outright wiping us out is greatly exaggerated.
  • Source: Pro provided an article written by journalist Benjamin Maack, a freelance writer for such informative titles as FHM and Fit For Fun, and editor of the video game magazine GEE [5]. Clearly only an entertainment writer, not a reputable source on the apocalypse.

2. Meteors and Asteroids.
Pro proposes Deep Impact [6], a movie rated 53% lower on Rotten Tomatoes than the last one.

  • The World: Not a threat to the earth. A truly massive one struck 65 million years ago, and life went on; kind of how we got here [7].
  • Humanity: NASA (in addition to other groups) have us covered. They've searched the sky and identified the possible threats which have paths that could shift into a collision course with us. Given how slowly things move through space (in addition to how empty it is), the odds of us having less than a century notice is 1 in 1000, but even then "There will be no great hurry, and no great panic. ... It probably would take only a small impulse (chemical rockets, or perhaps mass drivers) to divert it from a threatening path" [8].
  • Source: From pro "Even if we used nukes to try to blow the thing up, it would only result in breaking it apart and still having huge chunks hit Earth with major destruction." Major destruction, not doom. Plus his own source disagrees with him: "NASA tested four nuclear scenarios: a surface explosion, a delayed surface explosion, a subsurface explosion and a standoff explosion (where the bomb doesn't come into contact with the asteroid). The surface and subsurface explosions are the most effective, but there's a good chance of splitting the asteroid. In the end, the space agency determined that a series of standoff nuclear explosions would be the most effective way to deflect an asteroid headed for Earth."

3. Disease.
"Even if it's 'somewhat possible', it's not 'impossible.'" Somewhat does not even come close to a fact, thus this section is again going against pro's own rule.

  • The World: The Earth is a clean planet, that would not go within 365 million miles of a loose planet like Jupiter. It has no known risk of catching any disease (nor are planets known to).
  • Humanity: Strange as it sounds, diseases actually strengthen the human race. The Antonine Plague decimated Rome, and today we call it Measles. The worst disease we've ever known was the Black Death, and people surviving it is now connected to HIV immunity [9]. We worry about diseases for reasons of self preservation and compassion, yet the human race itself is in no danger.
  • Sources: No source to counter.

4. Our Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy.
"This will no doubt cause a catastrophe to the world." Unless you've read pro's source, which states all that will happen to us is a "spectacular evolution of the night sky," into something like this:

  • The World: No threat expected.
  • Humanity: No threat expected.
  • Source: Pro's source claims "The great galactic union isn't expected to result in the destruction of Earth, the Sun, or any other planet in the solar system. In fact, no stars whatsoever are expected to collide becauase they are so far apart within each system." Which clearly favors the world not being doomed.

5. The End of the Sun.
"The Sun will cause all life on Earth to no longer exist." Such a long time from now the relevance is questionable.

  • The World: Like in all of the above, the earth will keep going. Yes the surface will be blasted, but after it all here's what pro's source thinks the earth will look like.
  • Humanity: In the last century alone human progress has been astoundingly fast, and seems to be accelerating [10]. Yet even at the median level recorded over the last 2000 years, 3,500,000,000 years gives us plenty of time to adapt in ways we cannot begin to predict. However looking on a much shorter time frame; according to Stephen Hawking, colonizing distant solar systems is highly feasible "the main challenges won't be technical. The first will be financial. ... For the society that made it, there would be little payback: they'd never see it again" [11, video link]. Thus if there is ever a threat to our presence on the planet, there will be the motivation to ignore short term factors of money and flee. Abandoning the Earth (which will take care of itself just fine without us) is a valid option for humanity.
  • Source: Pro's source for the sun will die is Ron Miller, is an artist with a talented imagination. His website has some very interesting fantasy women on it, including naked-tiger-striped-furry-pirate-babes (NSFW, thus shall not be linked).

Pro opted to begin his argument in the final round, forgoing defense of his points.
His numerous arguments are unstable at best, and his sources have all been countered (some of them flipped to my favor). Yes it is clear the world and humanity will face problems in the future, yet mere problems and outright doom are not the same.

Sources:
[2] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[3] http://www.nukewatch.org...
[4] http://worldpopulationreview.com...
[5] http://www.spiegel.de...
[6] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[7] http://www.cnn.com...
[8] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[9] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[10] http://theemergingfuture.com...
[11] http://dsc.discovery.com...

Debate Round No. 2
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
You're allowed your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
No doubter this place isn't insane, you're just retarded
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
They got taken down because they were single round debates....then why the hell do they even allow you to set one up like that?!? Yes, this place is insane!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Doubter your new debates got taken down because they were based around common facts with you being Pro. Otherwise you set your self u[ for "instant win" debates. then you j quit trying and started allowing others to win. That isn't the spirit of a debater! Get a competitive edge, make some debates based heavily around opinion and controversy, and don' get angry when you lose!
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
I did and they got taken down for losing. This place is insane.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Please look up the definition of Votebomb, before crying wolf about how it cost you a victory. As things stand the only vote that could be considered a votebomb, which was not countered, is actually in your favor.

Instead of complaining so much after a debate is over, I suggest putting your energy into starting a new debate on some subject that interests you.
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
Way to go Ragnar! 100% win record pouncing on a newbie and getting a win with vote bombs.
You must be so proud of yourself.
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
It wasn't a "hypocritical fact rule".
It said, "Only facts count as arguments."

It didn't say you couldn't say anything else.
It just means anything else shouldn't be counted as an argument.
Posted by doubter 4 years ago
doubter
Why are you so obsessed with this "Qopel" guy? Another one you like to bash?
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Dude under your current profile you have nearly as many debates as me (a greater number without forfeits involved I might add), and under your claims against me none of my debates are meaningful; thus your attacks are actually invalidated by your attacks.

Looking at what I suspect is your previous profile http://www.debate.org... you've got about three times the number of debates as me, yet you seem to learn nothing. I have no interest in your next round here under a third name.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
doubterRagnarTied
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: Conduct- Pro said only facts and then used a bunch of hypothetical statements and didn't cite a source for the disease argument. Sources - Pro cited less reputable sources than Ragnar. Arguments - Con systematically showed how extremely unlikely the world is to end, with the argument about nuclear weapons being nigh impossible to detonate on accident (and lost ones requiring new neutron generators) winning him the arguments. And go naked-furry-pirate babes.
Vote Placed by Skrone 4 years ago
Skrone
doubterRagnarTied
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: Con, I have to give you props. That was one of the most convincing debates I have read on here. Completely turned all of his sources around on him! Good job!
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
doubterRagnarTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con for Pro's hypocritical fact rule. S/g goes to Pro because of Con's early sentence structure/'summery' in round three. Con refuted all of Pro's arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
doubterRagnarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both votes were without justification. Pro still needs four points to cover the votebombs. Edit: DanT got one so I'll take the other
Vote Placed by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
doubterRagnarTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB: leojm
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
doubterRagnarTied
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: Con impressed me the most.