The Instigator
TrakJohnson
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Krakokane
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We should help poor humans more than endangered animals

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 68521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TrakJohnson

Pro

Animals are quite important, I agree, as they are essential in the food chain. But, the human you will save from hunger and educate might be the one that will find the end to all problems (even if that is not very probable) On the other side, it's not the animal you save that's going to resolve all the problems on Earth !
Krakokane

Con

There are not meant to be this many humans.

Every disease, disability, and birth defect that has developed over the course of humanity has simply been nature attempting to control the rate at which the human race grows; not develops, mind you, but grows numerically. I am not suggesting that "nature" is a sentient being, but rather the essence of life, or at least what we understand of it. Why else would these conditions exist? Were we to be stripped of our current technological status, the sick and old would not survive. These problems, which seem to us a ghastly and horrid affair, really are just natural. Some are simply not intended to survive. I propose it to you that perhaps poverty is simply another form of "Disease" meant to eradicate a portion of humanity. Maybe, with all of our technological and medicinal evolution, nature is keeping pace. Perhaps it is written into our DNA that we should be violent creatures. And with a sphere full of violent creatures, wars are inevitable. I believe you can fill out the rest of the flowchart, and guess what happens next; widespread death, a kind of death that can almost be said to be even more effective at subtracting large numbers of human lives than any disease possible. Human nature is more deadly to humans than any virus. Poverty might be the same way. Our lust for currency and things of value could be another way nature has decided to control our population.

"All the problems on Earth", may I remind you, can be traced back linearly to a certain animal; humans. I'm entirely certain that manatees and pigeons have little to do with the tears in the ozone layer, or the vast array of noxious chemicals polluting our waters. You see, I believe it is universal law that any species who advances far enough will bite a little too hard on the hands that feed it, effectively destroying itself. If cats, or octopi had evolved to such an extremity in the place of humanity, they'd be doing the same thing.

So, I believe that instead of reinvesting your time and effort into the very same beings responsible for destroying the planet, you at least allow the rest of the animals that call this orb home to live comfortably and prosperously until we eventually destroy ourselves. My point is that, even though our self destruction is inevitable and imminent, we shouldn't have to bring the rest of the planet down with us.
Debate Round No. 1
TrakJohnson

Pro

Actually, after reading your article, I don't really know which side to choose. Even before, I couldn't see farther then people saying "Ohh, it's soo cute, lets help blabla and give money to them". After your post, I actually am between the two.
Krakokane

Con

Krakokane forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TrakJohnson

Pro

TrakJohnson forfeited this round.
Krakokane

Con

Krakokane forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by mcd 2 years ago
mcd
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the Con argument, I fundamentally disagree with the first round response.

- "There are not meant to be this many humans"
Not meant to? Who gets to decide what is and is not meant to be. Humans are a natural occurrence. The population cannot grow indefinitely sure, but that is true of a population of any animal. If this many humans exist, then clearly this many humans can be supported (right now, it says nothing about the future). Meaning has nothing to do with it.

- "Human nature is more deadly to humans than any virus"
Simply not true. Disease and illness have killed countless more than war and violence ever have.

- ""All the problems on Earth", may I remind you, can be traced back linearly to a certain animal; humans."
Major case of Reductio ad Absurdum. Even if the human race survives indefinitely, the sun will destroy the earth. Asteroids may have mostly killed off the dinosaurs. We almost certainly increased the volume and severity of natural disasters with carbon emissions, but they would still occur without us.
No votes have been placed for this debate.