The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There is no point in doing anything.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,338 times Debate No: 31973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




Let's face it, there is no "in the long run." As John Maynard Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead." So why make an impression on a crowd that will, in the long run, die out? This website won't remain on the web. Civilization will inevitably die off, power will be lost, the world will explode. This very argument won't be remembered as, "The discussion that saved the universe!" Maybe there is some self-fulfillment involved, but, as I have stated many times, we will all be dead. That feeling of accomplishment will die down quickly. Unless there is an afterlife (something I don't believe there is) to aspire towards, there is no point in doing something for the "greater good".

That said, there is no point in doing "evil" things either. Not only will your good deeds be for naught, but there won't even be any good deeds to be remembered by.

Let that sink in.


Good evening.
Today two amateur debaters will discuss the topic of the century. What is the purpose of our existence? Is it worth it to even make an impression on our constantly dying society? In the first round of this informal debate, I will establish my stance on this topic. We can clash the next two rounds. Please note that this debate will be more like a discussion, so please discard formalities and general conduct rules that apply to other debates, such as the naming of contentions, so forth so forth. Begin!

My grandfather once told me the meaning of life. Of course, I was dying to know what it is. Who wouldn't? I had heard approximately two answers to this question in my short time on earth. One was "42", and the other was from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

Of course, these two explanations of the question are jokes. Here is what my grandfather said to me:

The meaning of life is that it ends.

At first I didn't understand. Was my grandfather instilling an old man's morbid views of the coming of death? Or was he, too, playing a joke on me?

Only now I realize what he meant. We have to make the most of our stay here on planet earth. We only have a limited amount of time to read all the great novels and see the wonders of the world. Would you rather live your life a shriveled up cynic who wastes his precious time being bitter about "the point of it all", or would you rather suck all the juice out of the orange of life, so that the orange itself is shriveled. I call this the "shriveled orange" metaphor. Oranges are also delicious. Go figure.

My point is, the point of our existence is self-fullfillment. We exist simply as scientific matter. What separates us from animals is our miraculous conscious of mind, that exists in no other creatures. Should we take advantage of our presence of being and live a good life, or should we dismiss it is having no point and do nothing with our lives.

The topic is "There is no point in doing anything." What if the point isn't to make an impression to society, but to make an impression on ourselves?
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for properly introducing the topic.

You say, "The point of our existence is self-fullfillment. We exist simply as scientific matter. What separates us from animals is our miraculous conscious of mind, that exists in no other creatures."

Is that to say that we are the only sentient beings? That we are the only creatures that roam the Earth searching to feel?
Look in the Behavior section.

I do agree, however, that, "We exist simply as scientific matter." But I mean just that.

We have no purpose on this Earth except to simply be, and we even managed to screw that up.
Of course, that is an entirely seperate debate.

I loved your comment about the orange, though.


That is true. We are not the only sentient beings. What I meant, rather, is that we can understand that others have minds around us too, and have knowledge that we can't percieve. We have trained monkeys to use sign language to communicate with use, but they have never asked a question. This is not to say that they are not curious. They are very curious. They just can't imagine that there are other consciouses experiencing the same things as them around them.

So, humans are special make the most out of it.

Oranges are delicious.

My opponent does not refute my point about self-fullfillment. The point of life is to feel good, whether it affects the next man or not.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2


"Vote Con, 2013"

I suppose I should counter your, "feel good" theory.

As I stated earlier, this won't apply in the future. Yeah, you feel great now, but you won't feel anything once you're dead. Maybe it is important to oneself to live a good life. But what is the point in that if there are people who aren't feeling that? Are they not existing? Are they un-important to us?

I'm gonna make you feel guilty now.
A small, starving, incredibly skinny child approaches you.

He says, "Please, I need some food!"

You respond, "You are clearly not enjoying your stay on this planet; therefore you are insignificant."

My next argument surrounds curious monkeys.

When you say that monkeys don't ask humans any questions because they can't believe that they are concious, doesn't that contradict the time you said, "What separates us from animals is our miraculous conscious of mind, that exists in no other creatures."

I hate to bring this quote back, but you clearly stated that you can't believe that other animals have the consious of mind to answer questions that we have.

I like apples more than oranges.


OK. Let's conclude this debate.

I would like to establish something. Oranges are way better than apples. Especially clockwork oranges. Save it for another debate.

Also, let's stop all this silliness about monkeys and humans and dolphins and whatnot. I think I got the point across with what I originally said. That is, humans are special and separate from other creatures. To clarify, you would never get a monkey asking the question, "what is the meaning of life?", nor a dolphin, or whatever. Humans have the ability to speculate and ask questions, and are meta-cognitive. They are aware of their own minds.

So now my opponent uses my argument in the situation of a poor starving boy. I never said that those who were not happy are insignificant. I am saying that they are not living life to the fullest. Of course, the child cannot live life to the fullest because of his terrible predicament. We do not convict him of this, but we say, he is sad and his life has no point, because he needs to worry about food.

Look at it this way. All humans have a hierarchy of needs. Google "Maslow's Pyramid" for a visual representative.

Unless the lower parts of this pyramid are fulfilled, the higher parts cannot be fulfilled. You go in order. First you secure survival. Basically, making sure you are breathing and not on fire. Then we have safety, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, and then finally "self actualization". This is the exploration of the meaning of life. This boy is obviously still on the first part of the pyramid, so in order to fulfill life he must reach the top.

The fact remains, our point here on earth is not to make a lasting impression on society, but to be content with one's own life.

Thus, I have proven that there is indeed a point to doing "anything"
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 5 years ago
Con lost me when he said humans are special. Laziness is never rewarded.

Whether you ignore it or not, consider that humans are animals. Animals with the ability to think in deeper and more complex levels than most, if not above all of the Animal Kingdom on Earth.

They are not special, they are rare. Special is just a word to insert bias of opinion.
Posted by Mysterious_Stranger 5 years ago
Of course there is not point whatsoever as there is not greater good to judge a person on what they do during their lifetime a person can do literally nothing all their life and it would not affect them in the long run in the slightest
Posted by Sawybean 5 years ago
A vote for me is a vote for... laziness.
Posted by dragonb95 5 years ago
TROLOLOLOLO but seriously vote
Posted by krantz 5 years ago
I was going to read this and vote, but then I was like "what's the point?".
Posted by dragonb95 5 years ago
an amazing co inky dink!
Posted by Sawybean 5 years ago
Isn't it interesting that both of us have profile pics based off of Stanley Kubrick movies?
Posted by dragonb95 5 years ago
good point! can you vote please?
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
If I were Con, I would have opened by saying "If Con truly believes there's no point in doing anything, then he must agree to concede this debate next round. If he does not concede next round, then he is implicitly agreeing that there is some point to doing this debate, which by doing so he also concedes the debate."
Posted by JohnnyBadNews666 5 years ago
Monkeys Suck. Jesse Ventura is conscious.
No votes have been placed for this debate.