The Instigator
segregory
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kyleflanagan97
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Why do people get to live?

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...
kyleflanagan97
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 287 times Debate No: 91469
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

segregory

Con

The human race has an enormous impact on this planet! We control and modify the Earth more than any other species. How do we meet the needs of human beings and also preserve Earth's finite resources, biodiversity, and natural beauty? This is the fundamental question of our time, and the challenge is becoming more critical as we continue to add more people. So why keep giving birth? There is no true reason. What do we even do on earth? All we do is eat and sleep and play with paper called "Money". Just destroy money keep making food but not selling it. If the wold shared, heck we could survie. But instead people are forced to pay and go bankruped. Then we cant eat.
kyleflanagan97

Pro

I believe that it is very important to protect this planet we call home, but with the destruction of money you also eliminate are ability to trade. The only people with any value would be farmers and old merchants who still make goods by hand. We would be stepping back centuries of development and sacrifice and would see the destruction of society and our own existence..
Debate Round No. 1
segregory

Con

But why pay for doing work. The work needs to be done and listen. We are handing eachother paper and give it to a store. The store buys more food. SO this paper is getting handing around in circles. Heck you might touch a peice of money you touched 2 years ago.
kyleflanagan97

Pro

Rich but if we were just trading food then it would work as a circle, but with other goods it is not just a circle. Food only works because it is a necessity, but something like furniture or clothing does not work in the same way.
Debate Round No. 2
segregory

Con

Trading?,no. Sharing. You produce the food and give it to the government and the government divides it to every american.
kyleflanagan97

Pro

Thats called communism which has always led to corruption and starvation. Food would be used as a bargaining chip and withheld if anyone did not comply with the government. I would recommend you study up on the Soviet Union and the starvation that occurred.
Debate Round No. 3
segregory

Con

The world is already killing people. What is our purpouse for living. Think deep into this. There is a little cirlce called earth. All we are doing is eating and sleeping. There is not a single point in it. We are keeping the earth running but there is no point. All the earth does is floats in a universe taking up room.
kyleflanagan97

Pro

Our purpose for living is to sustain ourselves and the planet to the point where the next generation can also survive. At a fundamental level our purpose is to survive.
Debate Round No. 4
segregory

Con

There is no point though. What are we waiting for another planet to live on so we can do the same thing.
kyleflanagan97

Pro

The goal of every species is survival, the point of surviving is to survive. Thats what a fundamental goal. Meaning that you cannot explain the reason you have that goal. All your other goals are predicated on the fact that they lead to the overall goal of survival.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was good on both sides. Both sides made spelling errors, but Con made more than Pro, so that goes to Pro. Neither side's arguments were great, and there were a lot of off topic posts, but in my view Pro made some very strong arguments in the final rounds. Neither side used any sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. One side having more spelling errors than the other is never sufficient. It has to be clear that one side's arguments are difficult to read. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter fails to assess any specific arguments made by either side, sticking to generalities.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
segregorykyleflanagan97Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was even and fair. Spelling and grammar was equally wrong on both sides. No points for sources because there were no sources. Pro made more convincing arguments in a) trade b) government c) purpose. Here is how those break down. A) Con argued trade is a cycle that never ends, thus the meaninglessness of it. Pro responded that some goods concretely end trade at certain points and make some richer, thus trade has a reason for existing. Stepping back to Con's wishes destroys society was never responded to so it holds. B) Con mentioned government just rips away all meaning from trade in goods. Pro called it communism, but failed to mention how that effected humans as a whole. Draw on that one. C) Con only questioned the purpose of existence, but never substantiated why being a speck in space shows no meaning. Pro responded that survival is that meaning, filling Con's logic void. Pro wins that. So ending tally is 2-1-0 for Pro. I VOTE PRO. Good Debate.