The Instigator
zubster_rox
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Wang
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

nature is a threat to humans

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: 11/15/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,129 times Debate No: 77
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

zubster_rox

Pro

i believe nature is a threat to humans think about global warming its killing us through skin cancer and other diseases. different types of weather has been changed due to global warming.
Wang

Con

Dear friends,

"Nature is a threat to humans", this phrase could stand for a broad terminology. Especially the word nature, in Cambridge dictionary, it refers to all the plants, animals and other things on earth not created by humans; events or processes not caused by humans. So if we take that definition, then one can't argue that nature is absolutely harmless to human existence, supported by the theory of evolution, where 98% of species have extinct in the past four billion years, due to revolutions in the natural world. so that would not be in the spirit of this debate.

On the other hand, if you're arguing whether the nature and it's potential to harm has been modified through human habitation or not, then this side of the house would argue that the existing nature has been heavily damaged through destruction and pollution. This is because of human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground. We need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run.

The opposition's stand is clear, we believe that nature is modified by humans' habitation, and these changes in environment cause harm. However we need to better adapt ourselves to the everyday changes in the natural world to minimize our loss.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
why did you vote for zubster? SHe put two sentances and wang discredited the whole thing. She even forfieted. What gives? Wang obviously won this.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
That darn nature!
It is endangering all of America!
It is planning to kill us all!
How dare we sit idly when nature plans its attack!?
WE can't stand for it!!
This stupid nature won't terrorize America any longer!
I call for a WAR ON NATURE!
God help who ever waters the grass!!!!
Get homeland security on the phone!
Tell them that we must make extra defense against nature!

Nature, the lord will strike thee down!

With the new "tree-killer act" we will have extra surviellance to track down the tree-hugger threat!
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Wang, looking at your avatar, are you a taoist?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
zubster_roxWangTied
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 yoon172 9 years ago
yoon172
zubster_roxWangTied
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 UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
zubster_roxWangTied
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 or8560 9 years ago
or8560
zubster_roxWangTied
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 Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
zubster_roxWangTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
zubster_roxWangTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
zubster_roxWangTied
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