The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
UnFascism
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

[We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologicaly)

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 5 votes the winner is...
UnFascism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,583 times Debate No: 11375
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Resolved that The human race should leave Earth as soon as it is possible.
I'll let my opponent start out with definitions and arguments.

-Thanks!
UnFascism

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for drawing up this resolution, for it is not something that is usually discussed. I look forward to an interesting and fun debate.

I shall take the negative side for this round.
To clarify this debate, I shall define some terms:
should: must; ought (dictionary.com[1])
Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like (dictionary.com [2])
Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior (Merriam-Webster dictionary [3])
Must: be compelled by physical necessity to (Merriam-Webster dictionary [4])
Given the aforementioned definitions, the framework is as follows:
The Aff must show that [We] the Human race ought to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically), as well as [We] must leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). The Neg must show that [We] the Human race ought not to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically), and [We] the Human race is not compelled by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically).

Observation 1: Earth is our home.
It is obvious that the Earth is the home of all humans, and that space is a very exciting frontier. Because Earth is the home of all humans, and has been, it can be assumed that Earth is effectively the lab rat for humans. Anything done to the planet or for the planet would make Earth the first planet to witness the effects of such actions. All problems dealt to Earth as a result of human intervention would therefore be the first, and solutions to such problems may not yet exist (ie feeding people in times of famine, sustaining agriculture in drought, reversing global warming, sustaining biodiversity, and so on). If we are capable of destroying the Earth, then we are capable of destroying any other planet/celestial body that we may come to inhabit. In conclusion to this argument, should we gain technological and fiscal ability to migrate to other planets/celestial bodies, we would destroy it as well.

Observation 2: Finding another Earth
"One sunlike star just 19.5 light-years away that may harbor an Earth-like planet is Eta Cassiopeia, the brightest light in this swatch of the northern sky" (Discover Magazine [5]). Key words to note would include "just" and "may." In astronomer terms, 19.5 light-years is not a vast distance, and the possibility of finding another Earth that is fairly close to our point of origin (again, in astronomer terms) is no greater than a "may." We would need to achieve a system to support life and travel the 9,454,254,955,488 km at close to the speed of light for more than 19.5 years. As it is stated in the resolution, the technology will be available; however, it does not state when this will be so. Given that there is no bright-line, we would need to sustain the Earth indefinitely to achieve this goal.

Contention 1: [We] the Human race ought not to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically).
Given what has been stated in Ob1, it is not morally right. Humans have destroyed countless ecosystems on Earth, and caused countless numbers of unnatural extinctions. " The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year....species extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past may not be apparent" (Mongabay.com [6]). Therefore, should extinction not yet pose a problem for us today, or when we are capable of leaving this planet, it is not moral for the planet to suffer the effects when we have left. Given that it is immoral to leave, we must remain on this planet to attempt to halt further problems and solve pre-existing ones; moreover, because the impacts of the loss of biodiversity is hard to quantify, we ought to remain on the planet Earth indefinitely.

Contention 2: [We] the Human race is not compelled by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically).
In my Ob2, I stated that the technology will take time to develop; therefore, research could last indefinitely, for there is no bright-line for when technology will be adequate for the 9,454,254,955,488 km journey. I also stated in my Cnt1 that we are morally compelled to remain on this planet. If we are to develop this "tech," then we are also technologically compelled to remain on this planet to develop it. Whereas neither of these two reasons have a bright-line for when we would no longer be compelled to remain, we must, then, assume that it is indefinite. If we are competent enough to sustain the planet indefinitely (either for research and development or moral obligations), then there is no necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically).

Conclusion:
Resolved: [We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). I have provided very thorough definitions and two concrete reasons why this resolution should be negated.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://m.discovermagazine.com...
[6] http://rainforests.mongabay.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

Thanks for the definitions.
Your points sometimes become a bit blurry, but I'll try to refute them the bet I can.

\\\Earth is our home; Because Earth is the home of all humans, and has been, it can be assumed that Earth is effectively the lab rat for humans. Anything done to the planet or for the planet would make Earth the first planet to witness the effects of such actions. All problems dealt to Earth as a result of human intervention would therefore be the first, and solutions to such problems may not yet exist (ie feeding people in times of famine, sustaining agriculture in drought, reversing global warming, sustaining biodiversity, and so on).///

yes it is true that Earth is our home. But that does not mean that it is safe. I will bring this up in my arguments but basically, Earth is dodging bullets all the time. We should not keep all the eggs in one basket, because if one disaster happens, an asteroid, etc. we're ALL dead. If we had left earth and settled other planets. We wouldn't be in the insanely dangerous place we call home.

\\\Finding another Earth; We would need to achieve a system to support life and travel the 9,454,254,955,488 km at close to the speed of light for more than 19.5 years. As it is stated in the resolution, the technology will be available; however, it does not state when this will be so. Given that there is no bright-line, we would need to sustain the Earth indefinitely to achieve this goal.///

As stated in the resolution, technology and money are not problems in this debate. Although, on your point, the technology would have to be created in the next 4-5 billion years, as after that, the sun will die. And we will die with it. This point is irrelevant none the less.

\\\The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year....species extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past may not be apparent" (Mongabay.com [6]). Therefore, should extinction not yet pose a problem for us today, or when we are capable of leaving this planet, it is not moral for the planet to suffer the effects when we have left. Given that it is immoral to leave, we must remain on this planet to attempt to halt further problems and solve pre-existing ones; moreover, because the impacts of the loss of biodiversity is hard to quantify, we ought to remain on the planet Earth indefinitely.///

I realize it may be hard mentally to leave these species behind once we leave earth, but we will have to be strong, maybe even (maybe) we could take a few with us. But if we don't we have to care about ourselves--NOT the dying planet, NOT the dying sun. I know this is selfish but under the shopping, the telvision, the SUV's, the human race is programmed like a computer with ONE single rule that cannot be broken, ensure th continuity of the species. If we stay on our dying planet for a few species, we are breaking this one important rule. Anyway these species will die anyway once the sun dies. So what's the point, let nature take care of them. The Earth can heal itself, and once we left, global warming will fade and fade until non-existent.

\\\Contention 2 (running out of characters, look above)///

We are NOT going to be developing technology indefinitely because the sun will die eventually. So we have two choices, stay here and die, or leave and live. It is a hard choice, but the human race will feel the same as a family moving to a new part of the world. But eventually that family will remember their old house as a memory, then the memory will fade to a reference point. Eventually the family will be adapted to the new house and will not even mourn the loss of their old house.

=========================================================================
Arguments:

1. The sun is dying

"The Sun will not live forever. It has enough fuel left, if our current understanding is correct, for another 5 billion years, at which point it will die. But could it be possible for the Sun to die much sooner, within the next 100 years even? From a scientific perspective, it should be said that this is very unlikely. But, it is also true that there is a lot about the universe that we do not understand."

2. The earth will die eventually

WWF has now confirmed : Earth Is Dying

It is now suspected that pollution in the Earth's atmosphere, caused by industrialization and natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, may have significantly reduced that amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. It is estimated that this could have led to a cooling effect of over 1 degree overt he last 40 years, which would go some way to offsetting the effect of global warming. Global warming is caused primarily by increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere that prevent heat being radiated back out into space from the Earth's surface.

The phenomenon of global dimming may therefore have saved us, so far, from the worst affects of climate change, although it has been noticed that as pollution levels have been reduced, particularly in Western Europe, the affects of global dimming seem to be reducing, leading to an accelerating temperature rise once again. We may therefore be in the paradoxical situation that reducing pollution might INCREASE the effects of global warming, leading us ever more quickly towards catastrophe.

3. The human race must expand.

Asteroids, magnetic storm, radiation, the list goes on of what can end life on this planet. Let's compare the Human race to eggs in a basket, which is Earth. If you threw a live hand grenade in that basket, all the eggs would be shattered. But what if you could put some of the eggs in another basket. The grenade blows up the empty basket, and the eggs survive. We must expand, it is not safe to be all in one small area where we can all be wiped out at once.

http://www.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.popularscience.co.uk...
http://www.popularscience.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
UnFascism

Con

I apologize for the unclear times, for Ob1 and Ob2 were simply meant to state the inherent situation and it's problems; Cnt's 1&2 were stating why the resolution is negated. I apologize for the misuse of the terminology, and I shall try to avoid it in the future.

Before I continue, I would like to state that the uncontested definitions and framework shall be used for the round, for they have been untouched in the last Aff constructive.

>>"We should not keep all the eggs in one basket, because if one disaster happens, an asteroid, etc. we're ALL dead. If we had left earth and settled other planets. We wouldn't be in the insanely dangerous place we call home."
>>Yes, I agree with the Aff's statement, partially. As the Neg, I am burdened with proving that the species Homo sapiens sapiens should not leave Earth ASAP. By simply expanding and colonizing space, we are not leaving this planet, simply extending the reach of man to more possibilities. This resolution is not fully affirmed until the species Homo sapiens sapiens is no longer present on the planet Earth; therefore, we must remain on this planet, although we can expand slowly.

>>" Although, on your point, the technology would have to be created in the next 4-5 billion years, as after that, the sun will die. And we will die with it."
>> "Human beings finally realize the dream of colonizing Mars. The first colony is built in the year 2997" (What the Future Holds [1]). This gives a better idea of what is to come. I understand that predicting the future is either hit or miss (usually miss) it is the best evidence presented so far in the debate. By year 3000CE, Man has developed his first extraterrestrial colony on another planet. If it takes 1000yr to colonize Mars, it would take much longer (roughly 3,375,000yr; direct relation) to travel the 19.5 light years. Even if the numbers are irrelevant, it does mean that the Earth must be sustained for another 1000yr, at least. Therefore, we must correct current methods while preventing further problems. This ties into my argument of morality.

>>" Although, on your point, the technology would have to be created in the next 4-5 billion years, as after that, the sun will die. And we will die with it." part II
>> This does not mean that all other planets and suns do not have the same problem. By expanding to new solar systems, this problem is then extended to those systems as well, not solving it. It is also within the realm of probability that some of those systems will be even closer to "death." While we must vacate Earth in 4-5 bill yr, until then we can develop the "tech" and gather intelligence of possible locations. By moving everyone ASAP, it will simply place the species in unnecessary danger.

>>" the human race is programmed like a computer with ONE single rule that cannot be broken, ensure the continuity of the species."
>>This does not refute the morality argument. Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. This makes leaving Earth still an immoral act upon all other known life forms.

>>" the human race is programmed like a computer with ONE single rule that cannot be broken, ensure the continuity of the species." part II
>> Destruction is not ensured by remaining on Earth, esp. if we colonize locations such as Mars. Despite our best efforts, it is not possible to avoid danger. It is omnipresent in the Universe, and can not be avoided. It doesn't matter where you stand in the rain; you are still going to get wet. Humans do not act out of "group" interest; instead, they act out of self interest. Because it would not benefit the individuals' chance of survival (if anything decrease from the dangers of travel in hostile environments), Game Theory [2] states that the individual should not follow that path of action. Given the harsh environments on this planet (Antarctica, deep ocean trenches, etc.) they are not colonized by individuals; only scientists at the best. Also, given that we adapted to this planet specifically, any other planet would be a misfit, and therefore harsh. Given we could travel, the individuals themselves would not want to undertake this burdens associated with it. Life has existed on this planet for 3.8billion years [3]; there is no reason (in probability) why it should suddenly end in the next 3,375,000yr and why we should leave ASAP.

>>"If you threw a live hand grenade in that basket, all the eggs would be shattered. But what if you could put some of the eggs in another basket. The grenade blows up the empty basket, and the eggs survive. We must expand, it is not safe to be all in one small area where we can all be wiped out at once."
>> If it were to blow up an empty basket, it could be a basket not yet colonized by man, leading to no harm; therefore, the only way to avoid losing the eggs would be to place one in each basket. However, it is then immoral to let some individuals die "for the greater good of the species." Because it is the object of the government to protect its citizens [4], and the death of entire colonies is not protection, then there is no more government as the primary function of the government has been nullified. No government would place an egg in each basket if it meant that it would not survive (governments want to preserve itself for it is made of individuals and individuals want to preserve themselves). The government would rather have Homo sapiens sapiens be wiped out than have it revert to the state of nature [5].

==============Arguments===============
1) We can colonize, but we will still be on Earth
2) We still have many years here on Earth, so we need to fix some things
3)a) The other locations will be just as dangerous
b) We have enough time to scout out possible locations such that we will have a better chance
4) It is still immoral to leave Earth
5) Individuals will not want to move
6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival

==============Sources=================
[1] http://www.whatfutureholds.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (wiki is not a reliable source, but simply for the understanding of Gtheory)
[3] Gilbert, Walter (February 1986). "The RNA World"
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[5] http://www.loc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Rockylightning forfeited this round.
UnFascism

Con

My opponent conceded the last round; therefore, he agrees me on all of my points, and all of my attacks upon his case. So, I would like to extend all my points made in round two, with the start of my first rebuttal. Everything that I have said in the second round is now what I will say in this rebuttal. There is no reason for us to leave now, or ASAP when possible. The claims i made are now truth, in terms with this debate, for my opponent conceded them. The same goes for the warrants and evidence. I now await a response.
Debate Round No. 3
Rockylightning

Pro

THE VIDEOS BELOW REPRESENT THE END OF THE WORLD AND WHERE WE COULD BE DURING THE END OF THE WORLD (hypothetically) CHOOSE WHICH VIDEO YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE IN.

For the record: I do not agree to your arguments and rebuttals just because I didn't post.
Also I do not contest your definitions because they are legitimate.

\\\By simply expanding and colonizing space, we are not leaving this planet, simply extending the reach of man to more possibilities. This resolution is not fully affirmed until the species Homo sapiens sapiens is no longer present on the planet Earth; therefore, we must remain on this planet, although we can expand slowly.///

Earth is more dangerous than you think. We should relocate to a planet with a stable star and a stable planetary system. Asteroids miss earth by tiny amounts all the time (in fact I remember a few months ago an asteroid was on a crash course towards Earth and we narrowly dodged it)

\\\Human beings finally realize the dream of colonizing Mars. The first colony is built in the year 2997" (What the Future Holds [1]). This gives a better idea of what is to come. I understand that predicting the future is either hit or miss (usually miss) it is the best evidence presented so far in the debate. By year 3000CE, Man has developed his first extraterrestrial colony on another planet. If it takes 1000yr to colonize Mars, it would take much longer (roughly 3,375,000yr; direct relation) to travel the 19.5 light years. Even if the numbers are irrelevant, it does mean that the Earth must be sustained for another 1000yr, at least.///

First of all we cannot predict the future, you cannot use predictions to support your arguments; especially if they are a wild guess. Second, if we do not develop the tech. and the money to get off the Earth before the sun dies so be it. But if we do develop the tech and money, then yes we should leave Earth.

\\\This does not mean that all other planets and suns do not have the same problem. By expanding to new solar systems, this problem is then extended to those systems as well, not solving it. It is also within the realm of probability that some of those systems will be even closer to "death." While we must vacate Earth in 4-5 bill yr, until then we can develop the "tech" and gather intelligence of possible locations. By moving everyone ASAP, it will simply place the species in unnecessary danger.///

I do not think you understand this point exactly...

My point is that if we leave Earth right before the sun dies (and there is a high probability of man putting it off until then) then we will obviously go into a younger solar system, and on the contrary we may actually move into a system with a stronger sun that can last longer than our current one.

\\\Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.///

If we CAN save other species, GREAT! But there is a probability that we cannot. And are we just going to stay on the sinking boat that is Earth? Or are we going to man-up and leave these animals behind for the sake of our species. I know it seems mean at first, but is it really moral to imprison the human race on this Earth so to be with the animals during the sun/Earth's death? No.

\\\However, it is then immoral to let some individuals die "for the greater good of the species." Because it is the object of the government to protect its citizens [4], and the death of entire colonies is not protection, then there is no more government as the primary function of the government has been nullified. No government would place an egg in each basket if it meant that it would not survive (governments want to preserve itself for it is made of individuals and individuals want to preserve themselves). The government would rather have Homo sapiens sapiens be wiped out than have it revert to the state of nature [5].///

Again I do not think you understand. My point is that the Earth/Sun will die eventually so therefore we should move the Eggs out of this basket ASAP (into another basket with no grenade in it). As you stated before: we are not talking about a fraction of the Human Race, we are talking about the WHOLE. So for the sake of the debate motion, we cannot go into fractions.

My Opponent's Arguments:

1) We can colonize, but we will still be on Earth \\\REFUTED///
2) We still have many years here on Earth, so we need to fix some things \\\REFUTED///
3)a) The other locations will be just as dangerous \\\DISPROVED///
b) We have enough time to scout out possible locations such that we will have a better chance \\\REFUTED///
4) It is still immoral to leave Earth \\\REFUTED///
5) Individuals will not want to move \\\REFUTED///
6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival \\\REFUTED///

===========================================================================

THE VIDEOS ABOVE REPRESENT THE END OF THE WORLD AND WHERE WE COULD BE DURING THE END OF THE WORLD (hypothetically) CHOOSE WHICH VIDEO YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE IN.

===========================================================================

Ladies and Gentlemen, put your hands together for the negative rebuttal!
UnFascism

Con

I thank my opponent for posting another argument; I would like to conclude the debate.

I shall attack my opponents points which is also the same as defending my own.
I WILL NOT BRING UP NEW ARGUMENTS AND IN THE EVENT THAT I DO, IT SHALL BE DISREGARDED
After, I will summarize Rockylightning's points and my own.

>>Earth is more dangerous than you think. We should relocate to a planet with a stable star and a stable planetary system.
>> First, I shall say that I will concede this point. I agreed with this point in my last speech; therefore, I stand by it in this one as well. The second part of my speech that was quoted referred to the resolution, saying how it is negated as long as the Human race remains on Earth. I assume my opponent recognized this fact, for he quoted it in his last speech. However, he did not respond to it in anyway, simply stating the dangers of this solar system and planet Earth.

>>First of all we cannot predict the future, you cannot use predictions to support your arguments; especially if they are a wild guess.
>>The idea of this prediction (which was not a wild guess; it was from whatfutureholds.com) was to enforce the fact that it will take a long time to achieve the "possible" stated in the resolution. Because of this, the Earth must be sustained for long periods of time to conduct research and development. Therefore, it is possible to live on Earth until a catastrophic event wiping out all life on it.

>>I do not think you understand this point exactly...
>>Let me clarify. Should we move to another planet, it is no guarantee that that planet will be free of the problems that me opponent proposed about Earth (ei sun dying. asteroids, etc.). Therefore, moving will not guarantee survival anymore than staying and expanding.

>>My point is that if we leave Earth right before the sun dies (and there is a high probability of man putting it off until then) then we will obviously go into a younger solar system....
>>Then, it shall not be as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). It is highly improbable that we shall achieve the "tech" right before (enough time to evacuate the entire planet of humans) the sun dies. We must achieve the "tech" before then; thus, this statement supports the Neg.

>>If we CAN save other species, GREAT! But there is a probability that we cannot. And are we just going to stay on the sinking boat that is Earth?
>>Once again, I am not proposing that ALL humans stay, simply that some do. The resolution is negated as long as the race never leaves the Earth. Expansion is an option that is being pursued by international organizations as well as entrepreneurs. NASA's constellation project is an example.
I provided a reason with evidence as to why leaving Earth is immoral. My opponent makes the claim that it is not with no reference to any source what so ever. It is then safe to conclude that that is an opinion, and the point on the immoral aspects of leaving are still valid. My opponent does not refute the morality argument. Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. This makes leaving Earth still an immoral act upon all other known life forms.

>>So for the sake of the debate motion, we cannot go into fractions.
>>In the first speech, my opponent said, "Let's compare the Human race to eggs in a basket, which is Earth." This is a contradiction, and because my arguments were based on the principles of the basket with multiple eggs, I shall conclude this debate with Earth containing multiple humans upon it.

>>5) Individuals will not want to move
6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival
>>These two are to be disregarded for they are not within the framework of Aff burden.

======Summary: AFF
>Humans must leave earth; it is a dangerous place to live. We need to go some place safer.
>Predictions are not arguments. No one can predict the future.
>We must be going to a younger solar system if ours' is dead.
>Leaving animals and plants to die is ok. Saving them would be great, but survival of the Humans supersedes all.

======Summary: NEG
>Humans will eventually leave Earth, but not ASAP. We will expand, but not leave.
>This prediction is a time frame, saying that we must remain on Earth for a while, and must sustain it too. Therefore we can sustain it indefinitely.
>But that "younger" solar system will have the same problems (if it is still there when we get there) and is not a solution.
>It is immoral by definition, with legitimate (uncontested) links and warrant.

======Conclusion
I placed it upon the Neg to prove that [We] the Human race ought not leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically) and that [We] the Human race is not driven by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically).
The Aff, [We] the Human race ought to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically) and that [We] the Human race is driven by necessity to leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologically). These burdens were accepted along with the definitions.

Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like.
I claimed that it was not expressing justice or moral rightness to leave other organisms to suffer for human deeds. This was backed by common sense, for, whereas justice was not defined, it is not just to have the innocent suffer for the crimes of another. My opponents responds with self-preservation, but, as he stated in his last speech, the human race is a single unit. If so, then it would not be safer to keep this single unit in another part of the universe, for it is the same universe with the same problems as our location in it. Considering how by colonizing other planets without leaving our own is an option (shown by NASA and others), the resolution is negated.

Must: be compelled by physical necessity to
I claimed that it is not necessary to leave ASAP, for, while the option is nice, we are not driven by necessity to leave. My opponent says that we must migrate, but the universe is a dangerous place, and no matter where we go, it will be just as dangerous. The humans can be divided, and until the last egg leaves the basket, the resolution is negated.

A thanks to Rocklightning for this debate. And thanks to all those that took the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
@ Me100

Wassofunneh?
Posted by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
HA hA hA HA H ha hA h AH hA hA hA hA ha H ha hA HA HA HA HA h HA ha
Posted by UnFascism 6 years ago
UnFascism
I just realized that Rockylightning does not have to prove the last two arguments; they are simply flaws in the resolution. The argument list for round 2 should be reduced to the first 4 numbers for the neg.
Posted by UnFascism 6 years ago
UnFascism
yes, but then it becomes a debate about opinion. I highly doubt that there is much evidence saying that we should/shouldn't leave earth. The definition of self-interest is far more difficult to debate, given that there is no definition that would support both the Aff and Neg.
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
I know he left con to define "should" which was stupid, but i must say that i don't think he meant to debate that it is morally right to leave earth, but rather that we shouls leave earth because it would be in our best interest.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
Sorry about that. I could've ruined it for you with semantics though.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
hello again badger
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningUnFascismTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by UnFascism 6 years ago
UnFascism
RockylightningUnFascismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sidobagga 6 years ago
sidobagga
RockylightningUnFascismTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Me100 6 years ago
Me100
RockylightningUnFascismTied
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:15 
Vote Placed by BlazingSleet 6 years ago
BlazingSleet
RockylightningUnFascismTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04