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

Do Humans deserve to live on earth as a race?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SonnyNXiong has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 110033
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Do humans have the right to live on earth? They have ruined and tore asunder the earth of it's resources, natural life, and planetary health. There are few that out of our masses that help promote the protection and preservation of earth.


Hi, thank you for having this debate. This is my first debate.

First off, I'd like to ask, what is nature?(I'll explain why this is important in a moment) Where is the border between natural and artificial? Does artificial even exist? Obviously, nature is not a supernatural force that controls the environment in which we live in, that's scientifically inaccurate. Nature can be considered anything really, it's more of how you perceive the understanding. Many people consider nature as only biological life, some perceive nature as the geography of earth , oceans, and weather events. Sometimes, people consider astronomical bodies events such as the sun, asteroids, the moon, even other planets that have little to no interaction of earth, as nature. If you can consider many of these examples as nature, then why would we not be considered nature. We are multi-cellular organisms like any other plant and animal. We are considered animals, but because we are such advanced organisms, we tend to differentiate ourselves with other species. In terms, we would be considered nature and what is happening is an natural occurrence. And, who is the decider on which species gets to live and die. When a new species of bacteria kills a large population of an animal, is it our responsibility to remove the species? If the bacteria is damaging an essential source for the human species, of course we take action, because that's what we as species do to survive. We live in an order of survival of the fittest. All living things from microorganisms and macro-organisms have the common idea of survival of the fittest. If something doesn't adapt to an new environment and can't live, it's going to die. Obviously, other organisms and plant life are an essential part for humans as we cannot live without it, we live in an ecosystem. We try to maintain that ecosystem, so we can survive as a thriving species. In short, we are a part of nature, and we are doing what is part of what nature does. It is essential that we keep living organisms alive, but removing the human species is not helping nature and is really not doing what nature is attempting to do, evolve.

2. The planet is NOT a living thing. Earth is just a rock in outer space revolving around a star like billions of planets do. Planetary health is not a thing.

3. Removing humans will actually do major damage to the environment. Thousands of species would be damaged. Cows, chickens, and many other animals will die thanks to your
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.