The Instigator
failedspecies
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Xera
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

humanity will exist as a predominant species in the next 501 years??

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/10/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,024 times Debate No: 4651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

failedspecies

Con

The Human race is flawed in many obvious ways.
I will begin the argument with this approach

-It seems to diminish logic and reason all too often for it's better.
By doing this humans take in account only how their lives would be affected by such actions at the very moment of thought.
Even though humans realize this as truth this is still practiced and is considered human nature.

With that i will like to add in consideration the current state of humanity:
We are governed in a way which is barbaric as ideology of any orthodox rule has been.
Our Governments ( i am talking about every "seprate" government in our little blue earth)is run through the power of the all mighty dallor.
There is no actual freedom of choice for the people of this world. There is only an allusion, this propaganda is run only by the rich of this world. The politicians the "peace keepers" have close to no say in all the major decisions that take part on our earth. Money can overpower anything in it's decision it effects everything from scientific exploration to construction of the order of thought and believes of our public.
This in it's self is slavery and our masters are dictators without doubt.

To observe how this effects our debate we will establish that for a society to
succeed in scientific achievements and constructing a promising future it must have as many of its peoples with similar status and control of any situation as possible.
But as a result of this method of rule, all power is given to but a chosen few. and better still these corporate minds run through a very similar order of thought. There objective is to achieve more power and to make sure YOU have less. Thus continuesly plunging humanity further from achieving harmony.
Xera

Pro

Thank you for inviting me to this debate. I know I was slow to respond; I wasn't sure I'd have time to take this up. but it looks interesting. Some of my arguments sound terse, it's just character limits.

*The Human race is flawed in many obvious ways.*

It's been that way for the past 200,000 years.

*It seems to diminish logic and reason all too often for it's better.*

Explain please. There are varying applications of logic, and disagreements as to what flow of logic gives the ‘correct' action, though I WILL argue that ‘correct,' ‘right,' and ‘better' are =subjective terms with meaning only to the speaker. Any use of logic that makes the human race /better/ is not flawed, as it is being used to obtain the goal of making things /better/

*By doing this humans take in account only how their lives would be affected by such actions at the very moment of thought. *

There are multiple charitable organizations that THRIVE, due to humans willingness to think of a future, other people's needs, and continuing human development. (Salvation Army, Red Cross, UNICEF, Greenpeace, etc)

There is nothing wrong with taking care of your own needs. I feel bad about starving kids in Africa, does that mean I can't feed my own kids just to prove that? No, my suffering does NOT relieve others' suffering.

*We are governed in a way which is […] Our Governments […] is run through the power of the all mighty dallor. *

Barbaric (dictionary.com): without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive:

I would like some proof that we are uncivilized or primitive.

We depend upon currency.If nothing had value then nothing accomplished would have value. The works of Mozart would be equal to my singing in the shower (they're not, trust me) If we establish that items and achievements have value, then there must be some manner of exchange. In this way we move past the point of struggling to maintain basic needs and into a world where we can accomplish more.

Commerce made innovation possible. No one cares about building homes for the poor if they must be planting, hunting, gathering, and hauling water all day. Currency makes it possible to meet the basic needs without devoting all our time to meeting them. We can have food we didn't grow, instead of growing food we can invent.

*There is no actual freedom of choice for the people of this world. *

Really? I made a choice to move back to the US from Germany, how many kids to have, what to name them, what college to attend, to go to college at all, what career to follow, what school districts to apply for work in, thus choosing where I would live, what faith I would believe in- or not if I wanted to- how I would practice that faith, what movies I watch, TV shows I watch, Computer websites I will visits, vacation spots I go to. I can't choose to be born or die, everything else is up mine.

*There is only an allusion; this propaganda is run only by the rich of this world. The politicians the "peace keepers" have close to no say in all the major decisions that take part on our earth. *

Are you suggesting that politicians are bribed by special interest groups? I say this has been going on as long as there have been politicians. Moses bribed the officials in Egypt, if you believe that, either way, the Bible does provide written documentation that the idea occurred to someone that kings can be coerced & bribed. That was, around 3,000 years ago. If governmental coercion would end existence, it would have.

*Money can overpower anything […]it effects everything from scientific exploration to construction of the order of thought and believes of our public. This in it's self is slavery and our masters are dictators without doubt.*

There is a fundamental difference of opinion on what slavery is.

(Dictionary.com) Slavery: severe toil; drudgery.

I chose the definition most closely related to the manner in which YOU are using it, and there is still a huge flaw. One is required to perform in the institute of slavery. Being unable to perform is not the same.. "I can't" is not the same as "I must."

To observe how this effects our debate we will establish that for a society to
succeed in scientific achievements and constructing a promising future it must have as many of its peoples with similar status and control of any situation as possible.

WHAT? The fact is that we have achieved an unimaginable amount of scientific achievement in the 200,000 yrs we have existed. For most of that time, slavery was the norm. There has never been an equality of treatment for members of a society. The closest that has ever occurred is RIGHT NOW. So for your argument to make sense, then all significant scientific achievements leading to "constructing a promising future" would have had to take place in the past 40 years, when we have been at our closest to ‘equal' as we have ever been (as a total of humanity, not individual nations)

That hasn't happened. The space race took place in the 60s, during the civil rights movement in the US. I think we can all agree that separate schools, drinking fountains, and bus seats do not constitute equal treatment? Yet we went to space with this hanging over our heads.

The airplane was invented in 1903, when, in North Carolina black people were being kept on sharecropping farms- another form of slavery. Obviously the Wright Brothers didn't feel stifled by the inequality around them while they were succeeding in this scientific achievement.

Paper was first used in Imperial China. I think we can all agree that there is no equality in an Imperial society.

All of society has been built on the backs of slaves. Every culture, everywhere, at one point, grew from the work of slaves. Some societies called them ‘serfs' some ‘indentured servants' but all were slaves in one manner or another.

My point is inequality has ALWAYS existed. We have made scientific advances, improved the lifestyle, and constructed promising futures, throughout history. You are going to have to show some way equality has been a requirement for those advances, which will be difficult as equality has never existed in history.

*But as a result […], all power is given to but a chosen few […]There objective is to achieve more power and to make sure YOU have less. Thus continuously plunging humanity further from achieving harmony. *

Humans may have wars, we may have social upheaval, and we may have another social revolution, but we will survive. If there is anything history has shown us it is that when the members of society feel oppressed, they rebel. Nothing says we will die.

You have not linked harmonious living to survival, or shown how this will cause us to loose what advancements we have created up to now, or shown how other animals might use this to become advanced enough to take over the world as the dominate species. History has shown that slaves survive, and rebel. They don't typically die out.

I have shown:

1. Civilization has existed for almost 200,000 years with the same corruption, greed, and selfishness that my opponent has mentioned, without the world ending.

2. Making life better is logical

3. Human beings can and do successfully show consideration of others and the future

4. Dependence upon money is not equivalent to slavery

5. Political corruption does not lead to the end of humanity.

6. Inequality does not prevent scientific advances.

7. Lack of harmony does not equal end of humanity.

My Opponent has shown:

1. Politicians are corrupt

2. Money is a prime motivator

3. Unbalanced playing fields cause disharmony

She has failed to show

1. this will end humans dominance
2. that 501 years is the actual time limit for such an end.
Debate Round No. 1
failedspecies

Con

failedspecies forfeited this round.
Xera

Pro

My opponant is speechless :D

Please extend all my arguements.

1. Civilization has existed for almost 200,000 years with the same corruption, greed, and selfishness that my opponent has mentioned, without the world ending.

2. Making life better is logical

3. Human beings can successfully show consideration of others and the future

4. Dependence upon money is not equivalent to slavery

5. Political corruption does not lead to the end of humanity.

6. Inequality does not prevent scientific advances.

7. Lack of harmony does not equal end of humanity.
Debate Round No. 2
failedspecies

Con

failedspecies forfeited this round.
Xera

Pro

I think the lady wished to make a statement and made it then disappeared. It is a waste of my time and yours, but, my points still stand unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
failedspeciesXeraTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Karoz 9 years ago
Karoz
failedspeciesXeraTied
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 lorca 9 years ago
lorca
failedspeciesXeraTied
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 Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
failedspeciesXeraTied
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 Xera 9 years ago
Xera
failedspeciesXeraTied
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 JoeBob 9 years ago
JoeBob
failedspeciesXeraTied
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