Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
8
debates
43.75%
won
Topic
#5716
Humanity is doomed to destroy itself.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Random
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Description
A serious debate on whether humanity is simply delaying our self-destruction, or do we have a shot at peace and long-term survival? Any thoughts are welcome, whether you want to argue philosophically or by using statistics. (P.S this is not a debate on whether we SHOULD survive but on if we have a chance)
Round 1
Forfeited
NOTE FOR DEBATE
Just because I am con, does not mean that I disagree with the debate title at hand. Honestly I am unsure as to what side to pick or even if any side is right at all. But I accepted this debate as con so to practise my debating skills, no matter what side it be, or even if I pick no side at all.
Rebuttals:
1.Pro has forfeit.
This might indicate laziness, forgetfulness, or realisation that con is right. Pro might also be confused on their standpoint.I will provide more in depth arguments for the next round.
2.Pro has provided no definitions
What does ''humanity'' include and mean?
What is included in ''destroy'' and what is meant in it?
What does ''doomed'' mean?
Pro could have mentioned all this in the long description or in their first argument which they forfeited. These are fundamental definitions that should be provided at the beginning of a debate even if you think everyone knows the meaning/what is included.
Supporting Arguments:
1.Definitions
Ok, to start off, since pro did not provide any definitions, let me provide some definitions. Just as a note, ALL these definitions are from Oxford Languages one of the most accurate in the world.
1.HUMANITY
Definition of HUMANITY in reference to our topic:
noun:human beings collectively
What comes under HUMANITY?
Humans COLLECTIVELY.
2.DESTROY
Definition of DESTROY in reference to our topic:
verb:end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.
What comes under DESTROY?
Ending the existence of something/someone by damaging or attacking it.
3.DOOMED
Definition of DOOMED in reference to our topic:
adjective:likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.
2.''adjective:likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.''
Here in the meaning, it says likely, which means that it is not set in stone and may happen or not, but more likely to. So if we apply that to the title of this debate, ''Humanity is doomed to destroy itself'', which pro made, which has the word ''doomed'' in it, which means ''adjective:likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.'', which means that basically the title of this debate is ''Humanity is likely to destroy itself'' and since pro is on the side of agreeing for this debate, pro agrees for this debate that ''Humanity is likely to destroy itself'', meaning that pro agrees for this debate that ''Humanity might but is more likely to destroy itself''. So pro thinks that humanity might destroy itself. So pro should (even if pro isn't) be unsure as to whether humanity will or will not destroy itself.
Conclusion
- There will be more arguments that I wanted to mention in this argument but I couldn't since I didn't have enough time because the round will be forfeited. Though I hope to provide more in-depth information and arguments in the upcoming rounds.
- Pro has forfeited their argument for round 1.
Round 2
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
I don't remember what extend argument means exactly.
I think I vaguely recall some people using it in debates where their opponent forfeited rounds, just as a way of saying, that they are still in the debate, and to move the debate along.
Either out a sense of fairness to their opponent or belief that they themself had nothing more to say yet until their opponent said more.
I vaguely recall some voting guide or other, saying something that voters should consider when a debater extends their arguments,
But I don't remember the guide or what was said. Below is a forum post by a user, but I'm sure I remember 'something 'more.
. . .
"4. When a participant’s argument round is not published by the deadline, the participant automatically forfeits that round and most likely will be punished by the voters. If the number of forfeited rounds for either participant equals or exceeds half the rounds, it is an automatic voted loss of the debate. The opposing participant may indicate “extend argument to next round” in the event an opponent forfeits a round, or, a continuation of argumentation may be entered and published.
5. In any round, either participant may concede the debate. That participant may either abandon the debate at that point [automatic forfeit of each round], or indicate “concede” in each succeeding round[s]. The opposing participant may either continue argumentation in each succeeding round, or indicate “extend argument” in each succeeding round. In any case, concession, without recourse of re-consideration, is a voted loss of the debate."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4521-proposal-to-edit-debate-section-of-help-center?page=1&post_number=1
. . .
It might also be a term for extending one's arguments beyond one's original arguments in round 1.
A tacking on of additional arguments, rather than the development only of original arguments in round 1.
Here I have listed the different sources I use for my claims in PRO'S ROUND 1 ARGUMENT. Just as a note, the links down below are not blue or underlined, but when you copy and paste them into google, they WILL WORK, trust me.
Claim 1:
Just as a note, ALL these definitions are from Oxford Languages one of the most accurate in the world.
Source:
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/#:~:text=Oxford%20Languages%20is%20the%20world's,in%20more%20than%2050%20languages.
Claim 2:
Definition of HUMANITY in reference to our topic:
noun:human beings collectively
Source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=humanity+eaning&sca_esv=566487c1e8374dca&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&ei=XqftZrOHMNnAhbIP0PLdoAI&ved=0ahUKEwizrvj4_NGIAxVZYEEAHVB5FyQQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=humanity+eaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2h1bWFuaXR5IGVhbmluZzISEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBRhGGPkBMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMgcQABiABBgKMiwQABiABBixAxhDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAUjfF1COAViOFXAAeAKQAQCYAbwHoAGtF6oBCzItMi4wLjIuMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIHoAKPG8ICBBAAGEfCAg0QLhiABBixAxhDGIoFwgIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBcICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YgAQY0QMYxwHCAiwQABiABBixAxhDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAcICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgIFEAAYgATCAgcQLhiABBgKmAMAiAYBkAYIugYGCAEQARgTkgcNMS4wLjEuMS4yLjEuMaAH4ko&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Claim 3:
Definition of DESTROY in reference to our topic:
verb:end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.
Source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=destroy+meaning&sca_esv=566487c1e8374dca&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&ei=E7TtZtKvFI2phbIP_Y_t4AQ&ved=0ahUKEwiShfCHidKIAxWNVEEAHf1HG0wQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=destroy+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2Rlc3Ryb3kgbWVhbmluZzISEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiKBRhGGPkBMgoQABiABBhDGIoFMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyLBAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigUYRhj5ARiXBRiMBRjdBBhGGPkBGPQDGPUDGPYD2AECSJyTAlCt_AFYxJECcAF4AZABAZgBqgOgAY4cqgEJMC41LjcuMi4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIPoALSHqgCFMICExAAGIAEGEMYtAIYigUY6gLYAQHCAhMQLhiABBhDGLQCGIoFGOoC2AEBwgIWEAAYAxi0AhjlAhjqAhiMAxiPAdgBAsICGRAuGAMY1AIYtAIY5QIY6gIYjAMYjwHYAQLCAgoQLhiABBhDGIoFwgIZEC4YgAQYQxiKBRiXBRjcBBjeBBjfBNgBAsICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGMcBwgIQEC4YgAQYsQMYQxjUAhiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAhAQABiABBixAxhDGIMBGIoFwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgQQABgDwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAiwQABiABBixAxhDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAsICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgIFEC4YgASYA3S6BgQIARgHugYGCAIQARgKkgcJMC4yLjguNC4xoAetvQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Claim 4:
Definition of DOOMED in reference to our topic:
adjective:likely to have an unfortunate and inescapable outcome; ill-fated.
Source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=doomed+meaning&sca_esv=566487c1e8374dca&sca_upv=1&rlz=1CAOUAQ_enGB1114&ei=e7PuZrTaG7CLi-gPnMKV0A4&oq=doomed+meaning&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDmRvb21lZCBtZWFuaW5nKgIIADITEAAYgAQYkQIYsQMYigUYRhj5ATIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBTIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyLRAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAkiQLFCxEFi1HXAFeAGQAQCYAf4DoAGBIaoBCTItMS4yLjUuMrgBAcgBAPgBAZgCD6AC7S2oAhTCAhMQABiABBhDGLQCGIoFGOoC2AEBwgIWEAAYAxi0AhjlAhjqAhiMAxiPAdgBAsICFhAuGAMYtAIY5QIY6gIYjAMYjwHYAQLCAg8QABiABBhDGIoFGEYY-QHCAikQABiABBhDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAsICEBAAGIAEGJECGIoFGEYY-QHCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICERAuGIAEGLEDGNEDGIMBGMcBwgIOEC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAg4QLhiABBixAxjRAxjHAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIIEC4YgAQYsQPCAioQABiABBiRAhiKBRhGGPkBGJcFGIwFGN0EGEYY-QEY9AMY9QMY9gPYAQLCAhAQLhiABBixAxhDGNQCGIoFwgINEC4YgAQYsQMYQxiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICLRAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIoFGEYY-QEYlwUYjAUY3QQYRhj5ARj0Axj1Axj2A9gBAsICBRAuGIAEmAOSAroGBAgBGAe6BgYIAhABGAqSBwsyLjIuMS4wLjkuMaAH-5kB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on
Can anyone tell me what ''Extend argument''is? Is it just the second part of your argument or what? I am new so I don't know exactly what this means.
I am not sure if I want for world to be destroyed, but everyone knows we deserved it.
If someone from the future told me climate change would get us, I'd almost be happy, at least that means it wasn't some idiotic war/genocide for no good reason. Though humanity ending because we couldn't be selfless enough to live a little worse for the future wouldn't be great...
Well, the Sun will provide energy for many more years. Maybe climate change will get us. Wouldnt be surprised.
Thanks for the Interest!
Yes, I mean that I would argue humanity would destroy itself rather than some out of our control event.
This one is interesting, and if I don’t accept it I’ll probably vote on it.
Just to clarify, you mean that Con would be arguing that something outside of our control will destroy us rather than us destroying ourselves, right? Because humanity is doomed to die out eventually, it’s Murphy’s law.
I think God has some plan, which is why I am not praying to God to destroy us.
Nothing lulls me to sleep like the knowledge that we could end all life in 30 minutes.
I dont know if humanity will destroy itself, but they are doing a good job at it so far.