The Instigator
The_Great_Amalgam
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Leugen9001
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We should Destroy the Earth

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...
The_Great_Amalgam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 88761
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

The_Great_Amalgam

Pro

Hello everyone, and welcome to my first initiated debate. For my first actual debate, we shall debate on this important question.

Should we destroy the Earth?

It is a simple answer. We of course should destroy the Earth.

Rules:
First round is acceptance.
Second round is for opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Third round is for rebuttals.
Fourth Round is for rebuttals and conclusion, no new arguments.
BoP is shared.
No forfeits.
No trolling.
No changing the definition of words.

Definitions:

We: People in general.

Destroy: Put an end to the existence of the Earth.

Earth: The 3rd planet around the sun.

I would like to give the best of wishes to my opponent. May the best debater win and the loser learn from this debate. Thank you.
Leugen9001

Con

Hello, The_Great_Amalgam!

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Great_Amalgam

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now then with all formalities out of the way... Lets Debate!

Why should we destroy the Earth?

1. Because it exist.
There is a famous quote by the man know as George Mallory, which says "Because it's there". (1) The only reason would be to reach that goal, and destroying the Earth would achieve that goal. We should do our best to reach our dreams, and if it involves tearing down planets and people, then the ends justifies the means.

2. The Human Race is Evil
Every day, we hear more and more stories about disgusting events. ISIS had committed even more terrorist attacks, like the Belgium attacks. North Korea is still around. We also have the fact that we are always at a state of war. If we were to go out and travel interstellar, and meet aliens, with our such barbaric nature, we would kill the, and destroy their worlds! The only way to stop this is to destroy the Earth with humans on it so that we can never ruin other aliens lives as well as the universe itself.

3. Think of all the Resources
Remember, destroying the Earth doesn't just mean blowing it up, we can also mine it. All of those resources would help us be able to create our own world, a Dyson Sphere, even help us discover new materials. We would discover new theories and might even obtain interstellar travel. This leads to the next point.

4. The Greatest Science Expirement Ever
Imagine the data we would receive from destroy the Earth. It would quite literally blow you away. The experiment would help us learn how to prevent future catastrophes and how to destroy more planets faster (if we are evil overlords of the universe).

5. It is already going to be destroyed by the sun
Why wait for the next five billion years when we can destroy it sooner? (2) By that time, we probably could leave the solar system, so a great goodbye gift would be a glass of champagne... But instead of champagne it is a Planet Buster. We could all watch the Earth blow up, maybe with people on it for bonus points, and play the song Toxic on a MP3 player.

These are just a few reasons on why we should destroy the Earth, and there are plenty more. I wish con good luck, or else they might be blown away. (3)

1. http://blog.theclymb.com...
2. http://www.universetoday.com...
3. http://qntm.org...
Leugen9001

Con

1. All animals would be killed in the destruction of Earth
Utilitarianism states that we should always act in the interests of the majority of parties, and there are way more non-human animals than humans on Earth. While animals are different from humans, there is no logical reason why they should be excluded from our analysis of whether an action is good or bad. The animals’ best interests would be to not destroy Earth, as that would probably necessitate their destruction, and animals inherently want to survive. Since the interests of animals outweigh those of people due to them being the majority, the Earth should not be destroyed regardless of whether humans support the destruction of Earth.

2. Destroying the Earth would be costly
The cost of destroying the Earth is massive regardless of how it is done. Humans would need to research to create a way of destroying the Earth, which would be difficult and therefore expensive since we’ve never destroyed an entire planet before. Then, all of the resources needed would need to be extracted and equipment created, again a very costly procedure. As such, it is also in our best interest not to destroy the Earth.

3. We’d be throwing away an opportunity to study biology
Scientists estimate that around 86% of Earth’s species have not yet been described. [1] If we destroyed the Earth, we’d no longer be able to study all of them. This would become a detriment to us; an unknown species could, for instance, be used to create life-saving medicine.

4. Simulations of brains would also be destroyed
Unless souls exist--which they probably don't, since there is no evidence to such effect--there is no logical difference between a simulation of a brain and an actual brain. Simulated brains, such as neural networks, would be destroyed—therefore murdered, as they are just like real brains—without their own consent when computers are destroyed.

5. The majority of humans do not want to be killed
In utilitarianism, we should always cater to the majority. The majority of humans do not desire death, as it is human nature to try to survive. As such, if we destroy the Earth, we would be going against utilitarian morals.

SOURCES
[1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
The_Great_Amalgam

Pro

Rebuttals:

"1. All animals would be killed in the destruction of Earth"

In the first point, con is talking about utilitarianism and how the non-human animals interest are more important because there are more of them then there is humans. This is just simply not the case. The late Professor Raymond Frey, who was the author of many books including Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals (1980), says that "the utilitarian theory doesn't work for animals for they do not have interests since they do not experience wants, desires, expectations, or remembrances.". [1] So an animals interests do not matter for they in fact don't have any interests to begin with. Humans on the other hand, have interest because we can experience wants, desires, expectations, and remembrances. Our interest are also far more significant and meaningful compared to the lack of interest that non-human animals have.

"2. Destroying the Earth would be costly"

If we destroyed the Earth today, it would be costly. But, I said we should destroyed the Earth, not when. There is a simple way that is possible, just we couldn't do it today. We would use a process called a 3-body interaction. [2] The article describes how we could escape the sun when it becomes a Red Giant, with an asteroid changing the direction of the Earths orbit because of its gravity. But instead of pushing it away from the sun, we reverse the process and push it towards the sun... or Venus. As the Earth gets closer to the sun it burns and eventually falls into the sun, never to be seen again. Or we could push the Earth into Venus, completely annihilating both Venus and the Earth. [3]

"3. We'd be throwing away an opportunity to study biology"

Why would we need to create life-saving medicine, if all humans on the Earth would be killed in the destruction. Seems counterproductive to create medicine that would save no one, because no one would be able to take it. And even if some humans survived the destruction, by the time that we do destroy the Earth, we might have the technology to cure humans of all disease, virus, cancer, or illness. Did the Rebels all die from disease when the Death Star destroyed Alderaan in Star Wars? No, they did not.

"4. Simulations of brains would also be destroyed"

There is a quote I believe that con is familiar with. It is "The end justifies the means". I am talking about the destruction of the Earth, I more or less said that the human race should die with their planet, but I never said that computers would also die. Thus simulated brains would live on, but the actual human brain might not. The means would be making a great deal of sacrifices, the end would be the destruction of the Earth.

"5. The majority of humans do not want to be killed"

I am sorry to say this, but con... what you just said is a logical fallacy! It is a clear example of an argumentum ad populum. You can't claim that the majority of humans do not desire death because even if a lot of people believe don't, that doesn't make it so. [4] You need proof, and a lot of it. And even if this wasn't a fallacy, remember that one quote I said, "The end justifies the means"? It still applies here. Making the case of utilitarianism, once again a moot point.

SOURCES:

1. http://ic.galegroup.com...

2. http://www.universetoday.com...

3. http://qntm.org...

4. http://atheism.about.com...
Leugen9001

Con

Unfortunately, I am unable to continue with this debate. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Great_Amalgam

Pro

I am sorry to hear that. All I can say was that this was a fun debate and I thank you for debating it with me.

Vote Pro.
Leugen9001

Con

Vote PRO. I was just too tired from all the previous debates. :{
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Everything// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: con gave up

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on full forfeit debates do not get moderated unless they give more points to the forfeiting side.
************************************************************************
Posted by themightyindividual 1 year ago
themightyindividual
This should be a topic argument during the presidential debates.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
The_Great_AmalgamLeugen9001Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes the debate.
Vote Placed by Everything 1 year ago
Everything
The_Great_AmalgamLeugen9001Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con gave up
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
The_Great_AmalgamLeugen9001Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to a Concession. However, I will post a real RFD later, but in case I don't get around to it, Pro still deserves the win through forfeiture.