We are in the middle of a mass extinction.
Debate Rounds (3)
Looks like climate change is well under way. I wonder if humans will react in time.
"The study reported that around 322 species have gone extinct over the last five centuries." 
We have lost many larger animals too. 
"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 . " 
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.*" 
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.  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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 6 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.