The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dannyc
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

killing these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

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 3 votes the winner is...
dannyc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 58825
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

H. habilis
H. erectus
H. rudolfensis
H. georgicus
H. ergaster
H. antecessor
H. cepranensis
H. heidelbergensis
H. neanderthalensis
H. rhodesiensis
H. sapiens idaltu
H. floresiensis
dannyc

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

duly noted
dannyc

Con

No argument has been made. I will make it very simply, killing another sentient self-conscious being involves destroying their future plans, relationships and also killing can also involve pain and misery for both the individual and the relations of that individual.

Our pre-ancestors were family and group based, therefore it is not unreasonable to say killing one of their members is both an act of causing suffering and also taking the life of a being who in most cases do not want to die. It seems plain absurd to say the suffering of individuals should not matter because they are 'different'.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so where do you draw the line? how far back on the evolutionary scale is okay to kill and not kill?

they are not homo sapien. they might not even be able to breed with homo sapien. are you that familiar with the science of it all that you know they are so similarr as to warrant not killing them say for sport?

what makes you so sure about your stance?

my guess is that they are homos, and you just don't like kiliing homos.
dannyc

Con

Since Pro used their Closing to make more points and inquiries, I will summarise and extend my position. In Conclusion, I argued that suffering and the ability of killing sentient self-conscious beings like our ancestors would be good and reasonable grounds to conclude that in the realm of morality, that is how we should and ought to behave in our individual relations and our broader societal relations, that we can say with a great deal of confidence that there are two overriding reasons to say killing 'homo's' is immoral.

Consequence on broader society

Pro made one specific argument, that is 'they are too different than us', but pro never clarified difference. Differences in what? Species? Looks? Intelligence? Physical ability? On the simple and singular point of 'difference', it is not a slippy slope fallacy to say that killing based solely on 'difference' with no clarification can lead to destructive and detrimental effects on our broad society. Religious difference, racial difference, physiological difference, and even intelligence gaps or poverty lines as deciders. To me, not only is being 'different' not in and of itself grounds to exclude their consideration for morality, but if we say it is not directly immoral to kill the homo, a point I have not conceded but for my second point.

Let's pretend. In that case, my points about broader society would imply that the act of killing 'homo's would lead to suffering of individuals we may under Pro's framework care about. On that note, we can say that the direct consequence on broader society is enough to condemn the action of killing Homo's.

Suffering and desires

Simply put, these beings can feel pain, they were the precursors to us, and therefore it follows that they had a nervous system identical to us, anyone familiar with evolutionary theory would know, a new or different nervous system takes more than even 25 species. So, these beings suffer, and it would be unfair to cause them needless suffering simply because they are not our species. We would be sickened with someone who killed kittens in front of the mother, and since these species are social animals, the suffering of needlessly slaughtering them in front of each other, or even the lack of presence of one you have murdered in quiet, is enough to condemn the practise.

In conclusion

Pro made no argument at all, and my original point was not challenged. I made a case and presented multiple reasons for concluding that it is morally wrong to kill Homo's.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Basically gibberish.
It's impossible to kill life forms that allegedly died a long time ago.
It's impossible to prove that our alleged "dead ancestors" were sentient or self-conscious.
Except for statements that I found in Eckankar & Quantum Physics,
time travel, changing the past, killing one's ancestors, etc. , should be Quite Impossible.
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Is it first round acceptance? Or can I make my argument?
Posted by iOS 3 years ago
iOS
When I read the title I thought you meant killing homosexuals.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 3 years ago
YaHey
dairygirl4u2cdannycTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: Pro didn't capitalize. Arguments: Pro didn't make any arguments and didn't refute Con's.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
dairygirl4u2cdannycTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am now convinced that dairgirl is a troll, she never supplied an argument so the points for argumentation go to dannyc
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
dairygirl4u2cdannycTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO only argued that the action of genocide was morally sound because they were different, but without a distinction as to what constitutes different, as CON pointed out, there is no line. Is massacring all blacks morally justifiable because they're different from whites or vice versa? CON successfully argued how this would be an issue and, as PRO had no other points, PRO's case falls apart.