The Instigator
SweetBags
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
DoubleXMinus
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

everyone is gonna die!!!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,715 times Debate No: 4097
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (16)

 

SweetBags

Pro

Double had a debate about this, but his opponent forfeited. i think this'll be interesting to debate so i decided to challenge her to it.

i'm am advocating that everyone is going to die, and my opponent will be negating this.

good luck! :)
DoubleXMinus

Con

Wow, my time is almost up here... lemme try to edit this pre-made response in order to fit this new debate.

I'm to understand that you think we're all eventually going to die (humanity is going to destroy itself) because of the way we treat our planet (global warming) and the way that we treat each other (wars between countries, murder in society, apathy toward our neighbor and such?) For organizational purposes, I'll go with this and adjust if need be.

1. Global warming.

Sweetbags wants to debate the possibility that as we continue to neglect our planet, we're going to destroy the fragile ecosystems beyond repair and that is going to result in the Earth being unsuitable for sustaining at least mammalian life… Okay, let's not make this a debate about global warming and just go with that. Although some scientists are saying it's too late to reverse the inevitable path of destruction we've set ourselves upon, I believe it's the general consensus that humanity still has time to act and the Earth still has time to heal.

We have seen evidence of human beings heeding the global warming warnings, paying attention to solutions and implementing more environmentally friendly habits into their every day lives. Example: Greensburg, Kansas. This town was destroyed by a tornado and the people involved are concerned about rebuilding in a way that will better protect their environment against future global warming consequences. What a disaster, and yet they still have the preservation of the environment on their minds, that shows an extraordinary capability to think ahead in the planet's favour.

http://www.cnn.com......

Since we are already displaying this ability to think ahead successfully, the possibility of an imminent extinction of the human race because of the way we treat our planet is continuing to become more unlikely. "We're all going to die eventually because of the way we treat our planet!" No, that's our choice and it remains to be seen.

2. Wars, murder, apathy.

These things have existed since the dawn of mankind and we have only exploded in population and progress since then. Now, you could argue that it's because of that progress in technological warfare that we're all going to kill ourselves, but we've seen evidence that the enhanced destruction capabilities we have obtained have actually prevented more wars and more loss of human life.

Example 1: Japan in World War II. It can be argued that if we hadn't dropped those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski and we had instead sent troops in on foot, that there would have been more loss of human life on both ends before we saw the end of it. (Lol, what a debate in itself, eh? I'm ready to address it further if you choose and at that time there will be links.)

Example 2: The arms race between the US and Russia at the end of WWII. What prevented us from killing one another were those nukes. There was no war because war meant mass destruction, even possible extinction. (Same thing, if you choose to engage I will elaborate and provide sources to back up my opinions.)

My point is, there is no way to prove we're all going to kill ourselves because of the way we treat each other. Little has changed since our beginnings in that respect (we're not all dead yet, right?) and even as we advance, we've seen encouraging precautions in meeting that end. "We're all going to die eventually because of the way we treat one another!" Again, that's our choice and it remains to be seen.

Lol, there ya go, Sweetbags... and I say the winner here gets to have the monkey and the other has to change their avatar...
Debate Round No. 1
SweetBags

Pro

I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect. The topic is that everyone will die, it is not necessary for humanity to be wiped out for that to happen.

I am saying that eventually, every human being will die. The circle of life is quite adamant on that fact, were all born, and we all die. Will it happen en masse (perhaps a hostile dinosaur takeover of the world)? possibly, but more then likely it will happen as each of us dies from disease, accidents, or old age. Therefore, we are all going to eventually die.

As per doubles points
1- Irrelevant, us (hopefully) nullifying the effects of global warming has nothing to do with the fact that all humans eventually die. If we cant then our quality of life will take a nose dive (http://securityandclimate.cna.org... warning: that's a very realistic and depressing report, prepared by the pentagon. you'll have a better day if you don't read it) but we'd still be here.

2- again, irrelevant. Wars might speed up the death process, but we will still die without it.

I accept your wager, whoever has the more votes 3 days after voting starts gets to keep the monkey, and whoever looses has to get a new pic.
best of luck :)

Only way global warming will kill us: (http://www.thedailyshow.com... go to 2:20-250).
DoubleXMinus

Con

You have completely ignored and mixed up what this debate was even supposed to be about. You requested to take the place of my former opponent who forfeited and it's quite clear that you didn't even read the debate you said you wanted to take on.

"I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect. The topic is that everyone will die, it is not necessary for humanity to be wiped out for that to happen."

I am the CON in the debate that humanity is going to destroy itself, I *disagree* with the premise that we're all so bad (to each other and in general) that we're eventually going to cause our own mass extinction... That was what my other opponent was claiming and that is the debate you said you wanted to take in her place. Understand?

That it wasn't pretty black and white to you and that you seem incapable of understanding my first rebuttal is pretty amusing. So what now?

Hmm, I propose that it is impossible for you (especially you) to know what sort of progress humanity is going to make toward a sci-fi like world in which the concepts of "Bicentennial Man" are capable of being realized. Therefore, we may troop forward into a world where the substantial extention of human life is possible and we may keep building upon that until it's possible for a single human to keep achieving successful scientific modifications into eternal life... (Now, I should really think of ways to modify that incredibly long run-on sentence, but since I have no evidence that you'll understand what I'm saying anyway, why bother?)
Debate Round No. 2
SweetBags

Pro

Double, it seems that you mistook what this debate is about. I saw your other debate and thought it an interesting topic, I felt like giving it a try, especially considering that your former opponent forfeited, so I challenged you to debate the topic "everyone is gonna die" (it was previously "We are all Going to Die!"), not "humanity is going to destroy itself" as you say. My exact words were "I think this'll (that everyone is gonna die) be interesting to debate so I decided to challenge her to it."

Your former opponent was arguing that because humanity is going to destroy itself were all going to die. The self-destruction was his reasoning for why were all gonna die. My reasoning is that death is a natural part of life, so everyone will eventually die. Two different approaches to the same topic.

Its not that I misunderstood your first rebuttal, it is that your rebuttal was untopical and irrelevant. I never made the arguments you were attacking, so your attacks were irrelevant. Your points were also untopical; because it did not disprove that, every human will eventually die.

I do understand your bicentennial man point. You are saying that eventually everyone will live forever (yay science!). However, this thinking is fundamentally flawed for two reasons, firstly it lacks any real scientific basis, and secondly death is a natural part of life. Human lifespan may increase to 150 or even 200 years, but eventually every life MUST come to an end. Death is a natural part of life; every story has an ending, every journey an end. A human lifespan will never be infinite, no matter the technological advance.

My opponent never attacked my case, nor did she rehab her own. Because of this, my case stands, and hers has fallen. I urge you to vote PRO not only because of this, but because every life WILL come to an end, everyone WILL die. My opponent has not shown how that is untrue, so it too stands.

I have shown logically why everyone is gonna die, I have provided evidence, my opponent has done neither to refute me, nor to back her case. Those are the reasons why you should vote pro, and why I urge you to do so.

Thank you
DoubleXMinus

Con

In my other debate entitled, "We are all going to die!" you stood by while my opponent never returned and left the comment, "wow, pro fofited. i thought *this* would be interesting to." I never responded in that other debate and then I get a challenge from you entitled "everyone is gonna die!!!" with no indication in your opening statement that you wanted to divert from the former topic. On the contrary, your opening statement reads, "Double had a debate about *this*, but his opponent forfeited. i think *this'll* be interesting to debate so i decided to challenge her to it". Every time you say "this" when referring to the topic of my former debate it can't be taken any other way than "humanity is going to destroy itself" because that, after all, was indeed the former topic.

Then you go on about how the unavoidable misunderstanding on my part is only one-sided, when you respond to the rebuttal I had no reason to abandon by saying, "I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect…" Lol, your interpretation of my first rebuttal and your manipulation is clearly the only thing here that's incorrect. Past that, since "we're all eventually going to die" is included in my first rebuttal, what leg do you have to stand on when disagreeing with me anyway?

You've created a debate where this none in a very slimy and intentionally deceitful way and have no merit in any opposing sufficient and intelligent way that is praiseworthy. Since you've already displayed this incredible incapability to conceptualize the topic of death, destruction and preservation, I still stand firm with my insertion that you, of all people, aren't qualified to speak as to the future of human life and death and the possibilitis involved.

SO, I think the audience should vote for me so I can keep my monkey if nothing else ‘cause this debate is lacking to say the least. Come on now, if you were my monkey wouldn't you rather stay with me as apposed to Sweetbags? Especially since he's proven nothing else here but that he is untrustworthy and with less than notable intelligence at that? *Pets her monkey yet again*... well, whatcha think?
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
well, looks like i lost. too bad, i liked that monkey (his name was bill). ive changed my pic, as per the bet. congrats on the monkey double...
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
pfg, im inclined to agree with logical on the "anger/outburst" thing. im sorry, lately youve been acting like a jackass (for lack of a better term). if you want to be like that then fine, but realize that such actions have concequences.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I said post not posts. And if you're simply trying to sway anyone who is reading, feel free to do it if that makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that we both know you had a post here previously. In fact, you even imply you had a post here previously in your previous post. Tsk.

As for the issue of harassment, I stand by saying it's probable given the circumstances. You've initiated discussions fueled by belligerence on two comment sections already. I have no reason to consider this comment section as an exception.

"You got owned in a debate, and then stuck your nose in the air and got mad. I logically provided reasons why you should and did lose. If you want to come out and call a spade a spade, then we can do it."

That's rich. Who are you attempting to convince that I got mad, publy? Me or you? You started resorting to personal attacks from the start. If you'll note, I've yet to resort to a single personal attack in the other topic. I think you're projecting on this.

"I said I believe you posted here because you wanted to try and refute me."

If that were the case, I'd be addressing your latest post in response to Minus rather than making independent (keyword) points.

This stuff about "serial harassing" didn't show up in my original post. In fact, all I was talking about was one post. Ironic that you bill me as one to make up arguments and twist words when that is exactly what you're doing now.

I'm not sure how the fact that you're still here counts quite a bit against me. Concerning your account status, my only point was in favor of the webmaster; you've been warned via post deletion.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I don't know of any posts being removed. Can you provide some evidence/cite a source? Or...just make it up. That works too I guess.

And calling *any* of my posts harassment is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I don't call names, I don't do ad hom, nothing. I admit for that one guy who posed as a Christian, I got angry. But for this discussion that is neither here nor there. I do not "harass" people and it is ludicrous to postulate such.

"Outburst of anger/non-civility"? You got owned in a debate, and then stuck your nose in the air and got mad. I logically provided reasons why you should and did lose. If you want to come out and call a spade a spade, then we can do it.

I said I believe you posted here because you wanted to try and refute me - not because you believe that I am some "serial harasser". And if you really think I'm some serial harasser, provide some evidence. Post some links. Heck, notify the webmaster.

I'd say the fact I'm still here counts quite a bit against you though.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
"Oh please. If people voted off ME saying "lay off the poppy seed" when he writes a book about me being on a secret vendetta on him, then they weren't going to vote on the debate anyway, and I am non-unique."

That's in a different comment section. I'm referring to your first comment here. I doubt the kind of voters I'm referring to actually bothered to follow you around.

"And I'm sure double got his panties-in-a-wad and clicked "report" to feel like an even bigger man. I don't think its controversial, and I don't see any violation of TOS. If you have one, post it."

Doesn't matter. The Webmaster (or fellow admin) read the comments which are reported. If he thought this was merely a personal issue, he wouldn't have removed it. Furthermore, from past experience, I can testify that the webmaster will often go to the lengths of letting you know if he agreed with your report and why via email.

I haven't personally read your post which was removed, so I can't specifically point out which rule you were violating, but given the circumstances, it was probably labeled under harassment.

"Personally, I think you're posting here because of my comments on that apples debate, not because you actually have such an opinion."

Half right. That is mostly the reason I decided to read this comment section (as well as the thread with the Lwerd) as your recent outburst of "anger/non-civility" intrigue me enough to find the source_. That said, I fail to see what reason I would have to make such a post if I didn't truly possess such an opinion. For that matter, why even post at all? Surely reading in this thread would be good enough to satisfy me.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Oh please. If people voted off ME saying "lay off the poppy seed" when he writes a book about me being on a secret vendetta on him, then they weren't going to vote on the debate anyway, and I am non-unique.

And I'm sure double got his panties-in-a-wad and clicked "report" to feel like an even bigger man. I don't think its controversial, and I don't see any violation of TOS. If you have one, post it.

Personally, I think you're posting here because of my comments on that apples debate, not because you actually have such an opinion.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I'd watch it if I were you, Public. Your post was removed by the webmaster so even he must think your behavior is contrary to the conduct he summarized is the TOS. I suspect that Double's vote count wouldn't be as high as it was if you hadn't posted that smarmy remark. Many users check out the comment section before voting and they may have simply wanted to spite your vote due to the rudeness in it.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
@Minus: So you're saying because two of your debates got another vote (I note these are 2 of the top 3 debates, this being the top, on your profile) its automatically a conspiracy, I must've voted down the line...twice...And presuming that I am secretly trying to reduce your win rate by voting....twice...it MUST be a vendetta, according to you. No, I couldn't have read the debates. You couldn't have REALLY lost fair and square.

Got it. You speak with quite an arrogance for one who is resorting to name calling. Your tone of prose is overly high, and self congratulating. Bud, if that's what you need for self esteem - to feel like a big man on a debate forum - you go for it. No one here's stopping ya.

Why don't you post a nice long cynical response to this, that'll be a rush. Ooh! And do a line by line breakdown. Only real big men can do that!
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
double,
ok....................
ya, i can kinda see y, but still.
we should probably set a date for the end of our wager, as voting never really closes... how about one week after the debate finished, so that would be friday the 6th. that ok with you?
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Lost*

And lol, it does look like you went and voted against me in two of my other debates that haven't moved up or down in quite a while (especially the CFR debate)... what a coincidence. Hmm, should I be expecting the numerous accounts now or what? *Laughs again* this is ridiculous, what a child you are. Ha, I look forward to continuing to tell the truth about what I see when it comes to you in the future, Public -- what great fun.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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 SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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 TheRaven 9 years ago
TheRaven
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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 
Vote Placed by dbershevits 9 years ago
dbershevits
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
SweetBagsDoubleXMinusTied
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