The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

human impact on the rate of animal extentions

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 472 times Debate No: 72521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




the world is evolving and in this race we have forget about the animals who live or lived with us we killed them all for our benefits, it seems to be alright but it has had a huge impact on our environment upto 150-200 species go extinct because of human created problems such as habitat destruction and over hunting, this is not right, what we are doing is wrong there are imbalance in the ecosystem. its time to stop and undo what we have done.......


Thank you for instigating this debate.

Since there is no established format, I will begin deliberation by positing my stance in this debate as the Con in relation the the apparent stance of the Pro.

"The human species has not created 'problems' environmentally in regard to animal extinction, habitat 'destruction' or over hunting that are different from simply the existence of life on earth."

I will explain what this stance means first by defining key terms so there is no question in the falsehoods that my opponent is insinuating.

1. Definitions.

Problem: "A matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome" [1]
Extinction: "The state or process of a species, family, or larger group being or becoming extinct" [2]
Destruction: "The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired"[3]

2. Deconstruction of Premises.

2.a. "The world is evolving, and in this race we have forgotten about the animals who live, or lived, with us."
This statement is has a normative implication that we should remember all the animals that have existed on Earth since the origin of life. While this would be valuable zoological knowledge it has no bearing on the premises of the debate.

2.b. "We killed them all for our benefit."
With the misuse and neglect of proper grammar by my opponent it is difficult to understand what is being conveyed. A factual statement with my punctuation is correct, we has a species have utilized the resources that other species yield for our own betterment. This is not a 'bad' thing. There are many examples of species utilizing other species for their own survival or betterment. A simplistic example of this is carnivores hunting prey for subsistence. A more complicated form of this would be codependent species and coevolution[4].

2.c. "It seems to be alright but, it has had a huge impact on our environment."
If the environment appears to be alright then there appear to be no 'problems', ergo the level of impact is irrelevant.

2.d. "150-200 species go extinct because of human created problems such as habitat destruction and over hunting."
Though Human involvement may be responsible for the extinction of other animals on Earth, it must be acknowledged that Humans are an animal that is present on Earth. The goal of a species is to propagate its numbers and ensure the survival of its genetic makeup. The increase of population and the expansion of our ability to maintain an environment that is most suitable for our species is the goal of any species on Earth. Our capabilities to ensure our growth by understanding the economics of viable growth makes us the most capable of survival. Even though this is devoid of 'naturalistic morality' it must be understood that habitat change is not only caused by human intervention.
"More than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on the planet are estimated to be extinct [5]"
This statistic indicates that even though human beings may be responsible for 150-200 species extinct, the course of natural evolution and change has caused the extinction of the bulk majority of life on Earth already. Every habitat destroys another habitat when it grows. The human habitat is simply the most aggressive because we are the most fit animal on Earth.

2.e. "This is not right, what we are doing is wrong. There is an imbalance in the ecosystem."
These are assertions of morality. From the stance provided above, would it have been immoral for the extinction of the animals prior to human existence? If no then this moral argument has no ground, and I would assert this.

2.f. "It is time to stop and undo what we have done."
This solution has no bearing on the argument but I wish to refute it by stating that extinction means that a species has ceased to exist. This means it is impossible for it to be undone without genetic reconstruction or by a parent species evolving and forming a genetic duplicate. This implication is irrational also in regard to the mending of habitats for the following logic:

Habitat A exists.
Human involvement destroys habitat A due to a change in environmental conditions.
These new environmental conditions are now Habitat B, because some form of life now resides there.
In order for Habitat B to return to Habitat A, Habitat B must be destroyed.

I await your rebuttal and look forward to deliberation!

Thank you again for this debate!

Debate Round No. 1


rahul_d forfeited this round.


Because our original arguments have been published and I deconstruct and rebutted my opponents contention, and with the lack of format, we must assume that a forfeiture constitutes a concession.

I yield my time to expedite the next round.
Debate Round No. 2


rahul_d forfeited this round.


I'm guessing that we didn't need Four Rounds. The pro is conceding.
Debate Round No. 3


rahul_d forfeited this round.


Pro is obviously conceding.

I yield my time to expedite the voting round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PatrickTheWise 2 years ago
The premise is flawed from the start, even neglecting the typographical errors.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
You're... really going to want to correct the resolution. You obviously mean "extinctions" and yet you wrote "extensions". I don't even know what an animal extension is, but if you don't want to get sniped, you should change it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.