The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We are in the middle of a mass extinction.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 94884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Looks like climate change is well under way. I wonder if humans will react in time.




0. http://www.usatoday.com...
harrytruman

Con

global warming is a crock oh sh*t:
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Rebuttals


"The study reported that around 322 species have gone extinct over the last five centuries." [0]

We have lost many larger animals too. [1]

"It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. " [2]

The natural rate of extinction is about 1-5 species a year. We are now losing over 1,000 species a year.

"The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.*" [3]

There is no way around this, there is massive loss of species many times greater than natural background extinction.

I don't see any contradictory evidence within the youtube. I did however find an article mentioned in the youtube that is almost contrary, but not quite. [4] Basically the article states that we are mostly losing endangered species. Yet, we are still losing the endangered species and thus we are still in the middle of a mass extinction. The mass extinction may end soon according to the article, yet it still doesn't contradict the present extinction rate. Therefore, my resolution still stands untouched by your argument.



Thanks for debating.


Sources
1. http://www.therichest.com...
2. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org...
3. http://wwf.panda.org...
4. http://dailycaller.com...
harrytruman

Con

You seemed to indicate that this debate was focused o extinction being caused by global warming, which thus far you have provided no proof for.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

I only said climate change to supply one explanation why the mass extinction is happening in the first place.
harrytruman

Con

My opponent is saying that we are in the middle of a mass extinction because more animals are going extinct, however, you cannot know how many animals went extinct since 1500, their remains could yet to be found. And having more extinction does not necessarily mean that more animals will go extinct at a rapid rate soon.
https://aeon.co...;
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: S/G: Both sides had minor spelling issues, but did not affect the debate. CONDUCT - I am giving the conduct point to pro because of con's round 1 statements. Calling climate change a crock of sh!t is not good conduct and is not an argument. ARGUMENTS - The argument source goes to Pro. Con seems to misunderstand the debate. The resolution is whether or not we are in the middle of a mass extinction, not whether or not climate change is real or is causing the event. Pro defines mass extinction in round 2 (he should have done this in the first round). He gives several examples of specie extinction and points out how the current rate of extinction (over 1k/year) far outpaces the natural rate of extinction (1-5 per year). Con simply argues that we have no idea how many goes extinct each year, but because this is a new argument, I must disregard this. SOURCES to Pro because he had good sources where he needed them, creating a big credibility gap between him and Con. Full RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently examines arguments and sources to come to a decision on both fronts. Conduct is borderline, as the explanation that something is not an argument is not a reason to award conduct, but as cursing in round has been a valid justification for awarding conduct and can be inferred as another reason for awarding conduct given by the voter, it is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
SOURCES (Cont.)

In a debate like this, sources are imperative. When making a claim about global warming and extinction, it is necessary to use reliable peer-reviewed sources for your claims. Pro provides several (including the Center for Biological Diversity, and the World Wide Fund for Nature) whereas Con only cites a YouTube video and a very questionable source at the end that could not be opened.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Harrytruman why do you think climate change is false?
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
@thinkbig
No one cares what you think, it was only my round one introduction.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Wow, con's round 1 should result in an automatic 7 point loss.
Posted by Zaephou 1 year ago
Zaephou
I agree with both your statements, I don't see any disagreements winning here
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
christians pick and choose.. muslims get killed if they dont follow the koran

religion is crime.. better get the lunatic bomber then the standard insane man yelling at people with threats
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
What is this overreaction to Islam? There are more Christians than Muslims and Christianity is stronger in the developed world than undeveloped. The idea of Muslims taking over 1st world countries via force is ridiculous. Any other method would simply take too long.

We will hit the 2C mark in 2050, at that point a slow and irreversible Armageddon will begin. Sure, its possible by 2120 or so for Muslims to take over the western world, yet by the time we should both be dead from global climate change.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
ok, to get rid of global warming.. simply, money has to cease
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
StupidapeharrytrumanTied
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: S/G: Both sides had minor spelling issues, but did not affect the debate. CONDUCT - I am giving the conduct point to pro because of con's round 1 statements. Calling climate change a crock of sh!t is not good conduct and is not an argument. ARGUMENTS - The argument source goes to Pro. Con seems to misunderstand the debate. The resolution is whether or not we are in the middle of a mass extinction, not whether or not climate change is real or is causing the event. Pro defines mass extinction in round 2 (he should have done this in the first round). He gives several examples of specie extinction and points out how the current rate of extinction (over 1k/year) far outpaces the natural rate of extinction (1-5 per year). Con simply argues that we have no idea how many goes extinct each year, but because this is a new argument, I must disregard this. SOURCES to Pro because he had good sources where he needed them, creating a big credibility gap between him and Con. Full RFD in comments.