Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4952
Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
This is a topic that may or may not be controversial. These indicators are true but the opposing side may object to labeling society as an anti human society. I understand there's give and take. There's things that work for and go against society.
It's up to the opposing side to challenge, question and argue against the indicators I bring forth as anti human areas of people activity. You know argue how they are not anti human indicators.
Round 1
This is a topic that may or may not be controversial. These indicators are true but the opposing side may object to labeling society as an anti human society. I understand there's give and take. There's things that work for and go against society.
The following indicators have been identified.
Homosexuality, abortion, death penalty, drugs and liquor, artificial dietary ingredients and chemicals, non-nutritious diet, non constructive behavior and language, non constructive social contact, non constructive contact and war.
This is not exhaustive and invites expansion at any given time.
1. Homosexuality
Why is homosexuality anti human or why does it go against society?
It is the very act that misuses or changes a biological function in which humans would be able to survive or continue to survive.
2. Abortion
Abortion goes against what humans are which are living organic mobile beings. This can be deemed as part of the same coin with abortion and homosexuality being each of the two sides of that coin. Human survival is compromised.
3. Death Penalty
Now on the third indicator, there's a connection here with derailing life to continue. The possibilities that could occur with human life contributing another or to another is eliminated with the death penalty. I'll grant in certain cases like abortion may work best for society. An example for the death penalty working best would be if it is indeed impossible and verifiable that the convicted empirically proven in a court of law of first degree murder cannot be contained. They've broken out of prison more than once and one of those occasions there was a second premeditated murder.
4. Drugs and liquor
These are the drugs that produce a non constructive effect. Now we get into constructive and non constructive which are determined by our lives being built up, prolonged versus shortened and torn down.
Example drunk driving to injure yourself and or others to the point of fatality. Being intoxicated under the influence of any substance that will impair and diminish the organic composition .
5. Artificial dietary ingredients and chemicals
These are chemicals used to mimic a taste such as the taste of a fruit but provide no nutritional value which depletes nutrition if not compensated elsewhere. These chemicals that are derived from toxic sources and are toxic in nature also provide a look to food for cosmetic appeal. All of this is a degradation gradually tearing down the body. Non constructive indeed. This is why an organic less processed diet is pushed or encouraged.
6. Non-nutritious diet
This is a continuation from the last point, point number 5. Chemicals in place that provide no nutritional value for perhaps taste. Then we have prepared items that are saturated in unhealthy measures containing things like sugar, sodium, saturated fat, trans fat. I have read that saturated fat may not or is not much of a culprit as made out to be. But for the classic traditional perception of it that is negative, I mean it in that expression of the point. All of these elements impact negatively on the body. I'm sure the opposing side is familiar with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
6. Non constructive behavior and language
This is of course in summary of everything else that has been itemized so far. Every last one of them are non constructive behaviors. How do they occur? From thought, to SPEECH(language) to ACTION(behavior). All non constructive from choosing a non constructive activity like gang banging or using language that promotes hostility or provocation from law enforcement.
7. Non constructive social contact
This follows up with point 6. All of this is interconnected. I'm going to gangbang with my friends in a gang robbing and taking, that's not constructive. I proceed to move towards a person I can see will bring about a hostile argument or I know this from the past, trying to fit in with the crowd is a no -no. So anybody inviting me out for a so called good time may be a no-go.
8. Non constructive contact
Now this is basically anything from touching a hot stove to being hit by a car. There are many things done in society perhaps unbeknownst to many doing certain things that are actually non constructive contact such as the touch of certain plants, wild animals, chemicals. Many of these things at first glance are seen as recreational like touching a person in the bedroom who has had much touching with others contacted you with a contracted ailment. Other recreational things such as substance use, bodily modifications, rough contact sports, physical stunts and contact with powerful destructive weaponry.
9. War
The latter of the last point segues with the powerful destructive weaponry. Now this is any circumstance. Not just in the military but even in one's neighborhood and or household.
There can be more areas that I didn't say to include but all are interconnected. Coincidentally it's 9 areas like the 9 areas of activity Mr. Neely Fuller Jr . has written about. In alphabetical order and that is economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war.
I make mention because of a sub title for a book of his. It's a textbook, workbook for thought, speech and action. The essence is similar with constructive and non constructive behavior. That is whatever you do is from what you think. Which may be a lack of thought on one thing and more on another. So you think which you can communicate into words which can be practically performed.
So coming down to what you do, is it constructive?
Does it have a constructive effect or a non constructive effect?
In terms of this topic, is it antihuman?
So we can get into this. We go in depth to figure the determination to label these 9 itemized areas properly.
I'm looking for the opposing sides to counter with questioning, explaining how all these areas activity, each one of the nine are constructive and are not antihuman.
Apparently I forgot about this debate so now Imma respond to this a brief way.
Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity.
"society is antihuman"
No proof has been given on what that means or why, as it would demand a fundamental proof, when in fact Pro's entire case is built on special contexts instead of a general one that encompasses "everything".
"consist of antihuman activity"
: to be formed or made up of (specified things or people)
Apparently, it would take EVERY event to be antihuman activities for this topic to be true. A set of cases that does not encompass everything, obviously, would not prove such a thing. I will give a counterexample outside everything that: friendship.
I temporarily submit my case.
Round 2
I will request the opposing side to actually respond to each of the nine points I made or concede.
This looks like another individual that commits the invincible ignorance fallacy.
"I'm looking for the opposing sides to counter with questioning, explaining how all these areas activity, each one of the nine are constructive and are not antihuman."
"I'm looking for the opposing sides to counter with questioning, explaining how all these areas activity, each one of the nine are constructive and are not antihuman."
"I'm looking for the opposing sides to counter with questioning, explaining how all these areas activity, each one of the nine are constructive and are not antihuman."
Shouldn't be this hard for them. Now let's go. Respond to the 9 points or concede.
I consider this request irrational due to my analysis that the topic requires a holistic review on all possible theoretical cases, not 9 special cases or even 100 of them. I genuinely ask Pro regarding why Pro thinks 9 is enough to encompass all necessary cases.
Round 3
" I genuinely ask Pro regarding why Pro thinks 9 is enough to encompass all necessary cases."
All I've made were nine points. Do you want me to make more for you to argue over?
How many points do you want?
Just respond to the nine or concede. This is not ultra complicated.
" I genuinely ask Pro regarding why Pro thinks 9 is enough to encompass all necessary cases."All I've made were nine points. Do you want me to make more for you to argue over?
Yes, because Pro has
- Not specified why proving these 9 cases suffice in proving the topic
- Did nothing more than attempting to prove those 9
Lemme ask you again, where is "friendship" among them? Can it be categorized within any? If not, then you'd agree that society consists not of "antihuman activity" but merely that a part, with the other part being, I dunno, NOT antihuman activity?
Of course, due to previous preoccupation I wasn't allowed to read thoroughly the opp's argument due to time constraints. Looking back, it seems as if I have found more cases of self-defeating efforts.
Homosexuality, abortion, death penalty, drugs and liquor, artificial dietary ingredients and chemicals, non-nutritious diet, non constructive behavior and language, non constructive social contact, non constructive contact and war.This is not exhaustive and invites expansion at any given time.
Speaks for itself. So Pro made a literal remark that the list does not encompass all antihuman social acts ever, then refused to expand, while making the case case-oriented: meaning that you are using cases to prove the point, not generalizations of the cases which would have much greater an effect as speculated would be appropriate cases despite unmentioned. On the other hand, the case itself is case-oriented, meaning that failing to list anything else that is antihuman, along with listing anything existent that is not antihuman, would result in that such a proof is unsound just based on the performance of this debate.
Then again, we are arguing about who's the better argument, not who is "right". If you know you are right but are unable to tell me why, it would be of no wonder that you lose. Once again, this is mostly metaphorical rather than literal, but it is literal when it needs to be.
Ohh, I forgot what "antihuman" means. Lemme check dictionary real quick once:
1: acting or being against humanity2: reacting strongly with human antigens
Yeah.
Do some of the cases even qualify as "antihuman"? Well, some of them certainly don't if you use your neurons rather than your sperm cells within a concentrated timespan to think, after Pro has written his argument for you to read.
1. HomosexualityWhy is homosexuality anti human or why does it go against society?It is the very act that misuses or changes a biological function in which humans would be able to survive or continue to survive.
No it isn't. If anything, brain signals telling some people to like other people the same sex does not diminish anything in human civilization. It is a natural process that gives more color(namely the ones on a rainbow flag, but much more than that, we'll go there eventually <chuckles at elongated rainbow spectrum on r/vexillogycirclejerk>) to humanity, you know, making them more colorful and all that.
I won't even waste my time with a peer-reviewed academic journal because I am arbitrarily sure this journal blog will cite one somewhere in its lengths. The fact that homosexuality is the ramifications of natural processes is almost common sense to present-day scholars. And guess what? Using biological functions in a way natural allows it to be used is not "antihuman" innately no matter what is!
4. Drugs and liquorThese are the drugs that produce a non constructive effect. Now we get into constructive and non constructive which are determined by our lives being built up, prolonged versus shortened and torn down.Example drunk driving to injure yourself and or others to the point of fatality. Being intoxicated under the influence of any substance that will impair and diminish the organic composition .
Hmm, pizzas have too much cheese, dairy and fat and eating more than one pie would make you a chubby tubby, so hmm, let's categorize pizzas as something antihuman because it is something unhealthy that could be eaten. /s
Drunk driving as a street menace might as well be truly "antihuman", but the class of events you are proposing is not. The class itself may contain antihuman stuff but that does not make the class itself intrinsically.
6. Non constructive behavior and languageThis is of course in summary of everything else that has been itemized so far. Every last one of them are non constructive behaviors. How do they occur? From thought, to SPEECH(language) to ACTION(behavior). All non constructive from choosing a non constructive activity like gang banging or using language that promotes hostility or provocation from law enforcement.
6.7.8 lefts all "constructive" counterparts, making me entirely sure, rather than pretty much sure or arbitrarily sure, that what Pro is saying does not actually comprise the entirety of society to make society antihuman. The proof, if you would even call it one at this point, is not only crazy from a content-wise standpoint but also suffers in a structure-oriented one. Wow. So what did you do? Nothing? Something? If you did something, my genuine honest request is that you better make it look like one.
Conclusions
- Pro thinks that his "9-points" attempt at arguing already attains his arduous onus, despite evidence conveying the opposite message:
- Some of the points, upon preliminary inspection, are b______t.
- Pro himself says that the list should in no way be seen as ecliptic and complete entirely, then contradicts himself(or is it a concession? I don't believe it) by saying that they suffice in proving the topic is correct.
- Therefore, Pro did not uphold his supposed BoP. Vote Con.
How many points do you want?
I do not know yet, all that I do know is that what is placed upon the pedestal we call Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity. (debateart.com) is not enough.
Just respond to the nine or concede. This is not ultra complicated.
I place this quote at the bottom of this "argument post" to show that yes, Pro indeed said this. I rest my case. Have a good day lads, ladies, specific and unspecific non-binary gendered individuals who are reading this. Peace out~~~ :)!
Round 4
"Yes, because Pro has
- Not specified why proving these 9 cases suffice in proving the topic
Did nothing more than attempting to prove those
9"
Unfortunately for you the topic is not "these 9 cases are suffice to prove society is antihuman ". You have one simple straightforward task to prove what I presented are not antihuman as an another attempted to do and had to concede on some and indirectly or reluctantly conceded on others.
All you have to do is disprove the nine points to disprove the topic. What do you not get about.......I mean you're asking for more points. Asking for more work . Making this harder than what it is. If all you have is nine points to refute, why are you asking for more to refute with the nine?
Wouldn't be easier to just deal with the nine?
It's like you can't refute the nine so you're looking for something else and or changing the topic about what is substantial in points to prove the topic.
That's a different topic. I'm just presenting nine points to either be true or false to make the topic statement valid. You falsify the nine points, you falsify the topic.
Matter of fact I made the topic statement with a sub title or alternative title of sorts.
"Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity."
You can look at the conclusion either way. We can argue it's true society is antihuman or we can call it that based on antihuman activity. As long as it has antihuman activity period, call it that type of society. Now I listed nine examples of antihuman activity. Why make it harder by looking for more examples? The less examples to argue against the easier the refutation, duh.
"Lemme ask you again, where is "friendship" among them? Can it be categorized within any? If not, then you'd agree that society consists not of "antihuman activity" but merely that a part, with the other part being, I dunno, NOT antihuman activity?"
You can integrate friendship in any one of those activities. I have been saying over and over how all is interconnected.
I guess the point you're trying to make is some things are antihuman and other things are not. Ok now are the nine I listed antihuman or not?
"Speaks for itself. So Pro made a literal remark that the list does not encompass all antihuman social acts ever, then refused to expand, while making the case case-oriented: meaning that you are using cases to prove the point, not generalizations of the cases which would have much greater an effect as speculated would be appropriate cases despite unmentioned. On the other hand, the case itself is case-oriented, meaning that failing to list anything else that is antihuman, along with listing anything existent that is not antihuman, would result in that such a proof is unsound just based on the performance of this debate."
Well deal with the nine first and then we can go wherever you want to satisfy you. We're not jumping, leap frogging over points.
"Ohh, I forgot what "antihuman" means. Lemme check dictionary real quick once:"
I already explained what I mean by antihuman through the points. "Preoccupied". I just come out and tell somebody I don't care to read or listen to what they got to say.
"There's things that work for and go against society."
What goes against something is "anti". Like anti-drugs or anti-violence which would be PRO human.
"Well, some of them certainly don't if you use your neurons rather than your sperm cells within a concentrated timespan to think, after Pro has written his argument for you to read."
Why did your neurons fail you to address this debate accordingly from the first round? It took until this point to do what you accepted to do.
"No it isn't. If anything, brain signals telling some people to like other people the same sex does not diminish anything in human civilization. "
If there's no sexual reproduction with the use of sexual reproductive material, how is there no diminishing?
Diminishing is what weakens or destroys whatever that is there so that "whatever" cannot happen.
The points that support homosexuality just cloud the truth.
"It is a natural process that gives more color(namely the ones on a rainbow flag, but much more than that, we'll go there eventually <chuckles at elongated rainbow spectrum on r/vexillogycirclejerk>) to humanity, you know, making them more colorful and all that."
Vague meaningless vacuous rhetoric blanketed with a mitigated sugarcoat.
I won't even waste my time with a peer-reviewed academic journal because I am arbitrarily sure this journal blog will cite one somewhere in its lengths. The fact that homosexuality is the ramifications of natural processes is almost common sense to present-day scholars. And guess what? Using biological functions in a way natural allows it to be used is not "antihuman" innately no matter what is!"
Will you take time to read anything. Guessing and being sure. I'm not arguing anything about natural. Scholars of nonsense.
"Hmm, pizzas have too much cheese, dairy and fat and eating more than one pie would make you a chubby tubby, so hmm, let's categorize pizzas as something antihuman because it is something unhealthy that could be eaten. /s"
Heyyy there you go. Now if you're going to be sarcastic, it won't help you but just expose you conceding to me. What you just said just added to my point. Thank you . Now you got the idea. Anything that is non constructive /destructive to life is anti-life or antihuman life. Bravo.
"Drunk driving as a street menace might as well be truly "antihuman", but the class of events you are proposing is not. The class itself may contain antihuman stuff but that does not make the class itself intrinsically."
Nevermind intrinsic but thanks for conceding. I notice you guys in one way or another agree as these details are plain and straightforward. It's like saying fire will burn and harm you. No debate .
"6.7.8 lefts all "constructive" counterparts, "
So are points 6-8 antihuman?
I notice you didn't say they were not .
"that what Pro is saying does not actually comprise the entirety of society to make society antihuman."
Being that you agree that antihuman activity exists in a society we have a society of antihuman acts. What type of society commits those type of acts?
An antihuman society. Do you follow now?
I have a noisy classroom. Whether every person or everything makes noise makes no difference. There is noise in the classroom. It's a noisy classroom. See you taking this subject making it more harder on yourself making more error on your part. Don't do that to yourself.
"Pro thinks that his "9-points" attempt at arguing already attains his arduous onus, despite evidence conveying the opposite message:
Some of the points, upon preliminary inspection, are b______t. "
You already agree and concede directly to some of the points so you might as well be calling yourself b________t.
"Pro himself says that the list should in no way be seen as ecliptic and complete entirely, then contradicts himself(or is it a concession? I don't believe it) by saying that they suffice in proving the topic is correct. "
I'm sorry but your mistaken and I've addressed this so moving on.
"Therefore, Pro did not uphold his supposed BoP. Vote Con."
You pretty much agreed with my burden of proof. So it's a vote for truth.
"I do not know yet, all that I do know is that what is placed upon the pedestal we call Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity. (debateart.com) is not enough."
Well let me know when you decide how many points you want to debate and we can make a debate series out of them. You pretty much conceded to the nine. I think some points you didn't even respond to like abortion and war. That's conceding.
Don't wanna read through Pro's whatever-that-is again, just so I would summarize here, that Pro thinks:
- Because I left some of his sub-arguments (points) intact, I have conceded and lost.
WHAT?
Pro has given zero proof on why that these 9 points encompass all humanity to be antihuman. I have given counterproof on the same matter for that matter.
Hmm, pizzas have too much cheese, dairy and fat and eating more than one pie would make you a chubby tubby, so hmm, let's categorize pizzas as something antihuman because it is something unhealthy that could be eaten. /sDrunk driving as a street menace might as well be truly "antihuman", but the class of events you are proposing is not. The class itself may contain antihuman stuff but that does not make the class itself intrinsically.
This one case showing one point is enough to prove the point for trivial reasons. In other words, Pro did nothing. Pro should not try to move a nail laterally if it is still stuck in the oakwood board waiting to be plucked, because there are better ways to move it after.
Pro should also work on his formatting because it takes more time reading his than writing the longests of mine. Whether if it is my problem should depend on the experiences of the voters reading this as well.
Tldr: ex10ndo argumento.
Round 5
"WHAT?"
The points you didn't respond to you conceded to.
Did you get that?
"Pro has given zero proof on why that these 9 points encompass all humanity to be antihuman. I have given counterproof on the same matter for that matter."
Not the topic. I believe you're the classic goalpost mover I've debated in the past. Just like old times.
"Pro should also work on his formatting because it takes more time reading his than writing the longests of mine. Whether if it is my problem should depend on the experiences of the voters reading this as well."
In the meantime you have not refuted any of my points. It's like you give one rebuttal round and then gave up. You just refuse to actually debate. Instead of worrying about a format, tighten up on your counter points.
This is all you got. As trivial as worrying about someone's format, making excuses not to read points because you have no refutation for, just stay out of debating for real.
I restate: the topic is "Society is antihuman or at least consist of antihuman activity." According to established definitions that are not formally attempted refutation, that would mean Pro needs to prove that all acts in society is antihuman.
Not all acts are antihuman, as Pro first gave 9 classes of example noting that by no means they are entirely inclusive, then in the later rounds, switching tropes to say that they indeed are and the failure of refutation of any of them renders Con a concession. No, the requirement is not "any", it is "all". A singleton example or even 9 examples cannot sufficiently prove anything unless Pro proves these 9 encompass everything, which Pro did not prove so.
I gave examples Pro's frameworks left out, and I gave counterexamples(such as pure friendship(?). These two classes of what you would consider counterarguments would entirely be enough to prove the topic incorrect and Con winning.
You just refuse to actually debate. Instead of worrying about a format, tighten up on your counter points.
I am pretty sure that if the opponent wants to die, leaving him alive and suffering would induce more pain, so that's what I'm going with. Peace out!
Waste of time debating this individual. Actually just interacting because they come with no debate at all.