Round 3. Rain King V parrhesia: Biodiversity

The topic for this debate is "Humanity should be doing more to prevent animal species becoming extinct."

Rain King will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
parrhesia will argue against this proposition.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debater posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image may be included in each post. No more than 5 references can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

The process of extinction is an inherent part of evolution. Extinction occurs (ideally) when an organism is no longer fit to survive efficiently on the earth. Fossil records indicate that most of the life forms that existed on the earth anciently are now extinct, due to climate changes, geographic differences, and what have you.

That being said, the extinction process as we know it today is moving much too quickly, aided by man�s selfish nature and stupidity. Over hunting, habitat destruction, poaching, and pollution are wreaking havoc with today�s wildlife. We are losing species at a rate we cannot afford. Estimates by Dr. Donald W. Levin indicate a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every twenty minutes.

�"The numbers are grim; Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past."

He also states that this period in time qualifies as one of six great periods of mass extinction in history. (Source 1)

Although diversity recovery usually occurs after such periods of destruction, (which can take several million years) the current rate of destruction could have permanent consequences..

Something must be done. Mankind has the obligation and responsibility to slow the extinction cycle. If not for the animals, we must do it for ourselves.

Source 1: www.sciencedaily.com...

Good luck Rain King, and thanks again, Kano

Throughout history, as my opponent has already stated, terrestrial species have undergone extinction, sometimes mass extinctions, as with the dinosaurs. That said, Why should humans do any more than they are already doing to prevent further extinction? So long as the process of evolution continues the gene pool will be open allowing for genetic diversity, and new and distinct species will evolve from those that do not become extinct.

While the wildlife of Earth is beautiful and at times stunning to observe why should human�s do any more than they are already doing to preserve biodiversity and save species from extinction? It becomes an ethical issue, of what is right and what is wrong.
An important consideration we must make while looking at this issue is the lives of rural towns, families, etc., that would be destroyed if certain practices were to be stopped. Local economies could be destroyed if logging, which is a big threat to species, were to be stopped, and as self-centred human beings, why should the value of biodiversity be placed above the value of a persons or a town�s livelihood? Is that right?

The ethics behind species preservation and biodiversity are flawed, however, as shown above, as well as illustrated further by my next point. In my opinion, it�s not right to kill thousands of grey squirrels in England in order of facilitate a comeback by the native red squirrel, thus preserving biodiversity. Killing animals to save endangered species? Sounds like it could become a nasty cycle, to me.

Also, the very idea of preserving biodiversity, or ecological management further illuminates the ego of humans. I don�t think it could be said better:

It presupposes that we know what's right for the earth, for each and every species, and - most foolishly of all - that we can be trusted with such power.

If man is to be blamed for accelerated extinction, why then, should man be entrusted to manage nature and biodiversity?

Steps have been taken to preserve endangered species. There are many ongoing programs that are working to protect these species, such as breeding in captivity, etc. What more can be done? Furthermore, Why should more be done? Perhaps we have caused immense damage, but why do we think it is our duty to save endangered species, much less think that we can!

Even if humans are speeding up the process of extinction, those who argue for more to be done to save endangered species are being short sighted. Given time, new species will evolve, and as humans, we can only go so far in the destruction of ecosystems which results in a direct threat against many species before we ourselves become endangered. When man realises this, that is a solution in itself. Before this realization occurs, however, no matter how much is done to save species, it won�t be enough because humans will not change their consumption, nor alter their destructive habits.

www.saveacat.org...

www.redsquirrel.org.uk...

My apologies for the tardiness, a little emergency sprung up that required immediate attention.

My opponent poses the question why man must do his best to prevent extinction. We must for the following reasons:
1. The current level of extinction is so high that we may possibly never recover the diversity of life we once had.
2. The rate of extinction is so rapid (according to a United Nations report on global health, a quarter of the worlds mammals will be extinct in 40 years.) that the forming of new life and species, as my aggressor induces, will be impossible. The number of existing animals will be far too little for any real evolution. (Source 1)
3. The high levels of extinction are only getting worse. The later we start, the more ground we lose.

Suggestions from parrhesia indicate a lack of responsibility from mankind. This could not be more untrue. Man is directly responsible for the current state of the environment. We have wreaked havoc with pollution, industry waste, destruction of habitats, and introduction of alien species which decimate eco-systems. As my colleague puts it, it has become an ethical issue. The only ethic, however, is honesty and responsibility. We, as the ones responsible for the damage, must do our best to rectify it. Not only for the animals, but for our own future.

It is not true that many small towns/cities would suffer from reconstructive action. The reform of harmful business doesn�t require them to shut down, just to keep their impact on the environment low. Logging communities can plant new trees, thus providing a habitat for animals and plants, and more lumber in the future. Heavy impacts to the economy can be avoided if the system is reformed effectively.

As for my opponent�s argument that man cannot be trusted with handling the environment, irresponsible and shortsighted businessmen and politicians are mostly to blame. There are many highly qualified individuals available to spearhead a rescue effort. It is silly to say that man cannot be trusted with the duty to care for earth. Who else will? We must

Breeding in captivity is not the only way to protect endangered species form extinction. Many scientists are working

Our responsibility is not just to protect endangered species. It is to protect all life from becoming endangered. If we do not attend to these problems, the current mass extinction could result in

An emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future food supplies, our search for new medicine, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe. (Source 2)

Those concerned with the rate of extinction are not being short sighted. On the contrary, those who oppose the movement are. With the current rate of extinction, species simply will not evolve. There will be no new diversity. It will be too late. A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes have disappeared from the world's oceans in the past half century, the devastating result of industrial fishing. (Source 3).

Maybe that will put things in perspective. We have lost 90% of big ocean fish. What is next?

Source 1: news.bbc.co.uk...
Source 2: archives.cnn.com...
Source 3: www.cnn.com...

Hope everything's OK, Rain King


~~~~~~~~~~

1. The current level of extinction is so high that we may possibly never recover the diversity of life we once had.

And diversity is important or should be cherished... because???
Aesthetics? Medicine? All selfish reasons.. that don't yet rise above the almighty buck.

With regard to small towns not suffering from reconstructive action - that's false. Towns that have economies based on logging on the West Coast of North America and Northern Canada generally employ a method called clear-cutting. Planting trees or not, it's not going to help the animals who once lived in the forest. the animals will retreat to whatever forest is left, resulting in overpopulation, which will sort itself out naturally, still resulting in deaths of animals and a threat to biodiversity. Clear-cutting is far more common in so-called 'third world' countries, also. So, please, tell me again how planting trees is going to prevent endangering species when in the end the result will be the same due to the fact that, for one, animals will be run out of the forest and forced to compete with other animals in the remaining forest, and two, that it's not so simple as 'planting tree's' when it comes to tropical forests where most endangered species are. The only realistic solution when it comes to preventing species lost when it comes to forest destruction is to not cut, which will ruin local economies based on logging not to mention the lives of poor farmers in third world countries who employ slash and burn methods to rid the land of trees.

I don't suggest a lack of responsibility, though it may seem that way. I don't think anything more should be done about preserving biodiversity than is already being done. Human's first need to become capable of regulating its own population before presuming to know what's best for the animal population. If humans could control their own population a byproduct would be that habit destruction would decrease. There are plenty of problems plaguing and threatening humans which should take precedence over preserving biodiversity in animals. In order to do anything at all, humans have to be around, so humans should take care of their own problems first, such as war, genocide, overpopulation, etc., before moving onto doing anything else with endangered species. Once humans realise that they are a part of nature then awareness about the importance of caring for the earth (not JUST endangered animals) will arise and humans will move on from there. Until that time, however, anything else will be fruitless because human's need the consciousness, they need to feel the connection and nothing more specifically needs to be done right now in favour of preserving of biodiversity.

The number of existing animals will be far too little for any real evolution.

Dare I ask what real evolution is?

3. The high levels of extinction are only getting worse. The later we start, the more ground we lose.

Perhaps you're familiar with the Gaia Hypothesis. If not, here's a short summary on the basics of the hypothesis:
Earth is self-regulating
Earth is alive
James Lovelock defines Gaia "as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." Through Gaia, the Earth sustains a kind of homeostasis, the maintenance of relatively constant conditions.

From this we can gather that regardless of the amount of extinction that has occured it is possible for regeneration of all things lost because the conditions are there for it.

No longer can we think of man's actions in one part of the planet as independent. Everything that happens on the planet - the deforestation/reforestation of trees, the increase/decrease of emissions of carbon dioxide, the removal or planting of croplands - all have an affect on our planet. The most difficult part of this idea is how to qualify these effects, i.e. to determine whether these effects are positive or negative. If the Earth is indeed self-regulating, then it will adjust to the impacts of man.

Is it so hard to believe that Earth will change and adapt along with us and the changes we as humans impose?

It is silly to say that man cannot be trusted with the duty to care for earth. Who else will?

It's far from silly to say so being that humans have not yet fully realised the connection they have with nature and until they do so they cannot be trusted to do what is best.


archive.greenpeace.org...
www.oceansonline.com...

And diversity is important or should be cherished... because???
Aesthetics? Medicine? All selfish reasons.. that don't yet rise above the almighty buck.

Classifying something as selfish doesn�t remove its importance. Who is denying selfishness? It is what keeps our society functioning. That is one of the main reasons we MUST do more. Apparently this quote did not quite sink in, so I will restate it

An emerging global crisis that could have disastrous effects on our future food supplies, our search for new medicine, and on the water we drink and the air we breathe. [1]

The effects of mass extinction could endanger the human population. If you want to call saving our own necks selfish, do so. It changes nothing, we are in trouble if we ignore this problem. Classify it as immoral, selfish, rude, boisterous, or mean, it does not change the fact that the human race is in danger.

Tropical cone snails contain toxins which show promise for treating some forms of cancer and heart irregularities. One toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine for pain relief.
But millions of cone snails are now killed annually for their shells, and their habitats are under pressure. [2]

I find it ironic that such scientific progress is possible, yet you suggest we do nothing more to pursue it.

In relation to diversity and evolution, what I meant by real evolution was not genuine evolution, but any real amount of evolution. Any real progress. If we leave the environment as it is, in a rapid state of destruction and decay, we lose any possibility of regaining the ground we have lost.

The Gaia hypotheses. Yes the world does renew itself, but it can take millions of years. At the rate of extinction for plants and animals, the human race will be extinct far before the earth is rejuvenated.

Many species keep us alive, purifying water, fixing nitrogen, recycling nutrients and waste, and pollinating crops.
Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces the oxygen we breathe. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas given off by human activities. [2]

We are destroying the very plants and animals that grant us life, and you suggest we do nothing about it?

As for diversity and who cares about it, that is an ignorant attitude. Denying the importance of diversity and the study of our world is the intellectual equivalent of mice in a cage; they don�t give a thought to anything, all they know is that their food will come down the chute every day. Who cares how, it just does.

That attitude is in direct opposition to human progress.

Our pillage of the natural world has been likened to burning down the medieval libraries of Europe, before we had even bothered to catalogue their contents. [2]

We are losing valuable scientific data by allowing more than the natural amount of plants and animals to become extinct.

Humans have to be trusted. We are all there is. No-one is going to save us for us. (unless you believe in extra-terrestrials, but that is another debate)

Accelerated extinction being out fault, we have the obligation to correct it.

[1] archives.cnn.com...

[2] news.bbc.co.uk...

Apologies for my lateness with this reply... things have been hectic.

Classifying something as selfish doesn�t remove its importance. Who is denying selfishness? It is what keeps our society functioning. That is one of the main reasons we MUST do more.

You're absolutely correct in that classifying something as selfish does not remove its importance, though, as I did mention, there are more selfish things that are held in higher regard than aesthitics, etc., and that's money. More cannot be done with regard to preventing further species extinction due to man's desire for survival in many cases, and due to greed in other cases. The quote sank in, thank you. However, as I did say, until humans understand their connection to nature on a wider scale nothing more can be done, nor needs to be done. Widespread human understanding of our intimate connection to nature needs to be developed, and this includes an understanding that we can't control nature (eg. attempting to save biodiversity, destroying nature).

Try explaining this to a poor farmer in Brazil who uses slash and burn methods to clear land for cultivation. These farmers are doing it for their own survival, and forced to do so due to overpopulation, among other things. These people will not stop doing this due to Western first world concern about biodiversity, and what it really comes down to is Western egoism, a belief that the west knows all, and that morals about what is right and wrong (in this case about species extinction) is something that is universal. This is wrong, and it cannot be wrong when most species that are endangered are in tropical forests in third would countries. Human survival comes before morals. If the problems were addressed that cause farmers to slash and burn then as a result it would positively benefit the endangered species. Once again, human problems first, biodiversity/species preservation come second.

The effects of mass extinction could endanger the human population. If you want to call saving our own necks selfish, do so. It changes nothing, we are in trouble if we ignore this problem. Classify it as immoral, selfish, rude, boisterous, or mean, it does not change the fact that the human race is in danger.

Of course it doesn't change the fact that the human race is in danger. However, do you think the human race would be safe as can be even if more was being done to preserve biodiversity and prevent further species extinction? I don't think so! There are far more pressing problems facing humans, and if some of these problems were addressed threats to species would diminish. More needs to be done for the human race and about the human race before we spend more efforts focusing on saving the animals. We are a threat to ourselves... war, famine, genocide, overpopulation - all far more pressing issues that need to be addressed and come before doing more about the animals of earth, and in working on or resolving some of these issues animals would benefit as well.

Tropical cone snails contain toxins which show promise for treating some forms of cancer and heart irregularities. One toxin may be a thousand times more potent than morphine for pain relief.
But millions of cone snails are now killed annually for their shells, and their habitats are under pressure. [2]

I find it ironic that such scientific progress is possible, yet you suggest we do nothing more to pursue it.

Did I ever say we shouldn't pursue potential medicinal benefits of animals? No, I didn't. It's not necessary to do more to prevent further species extinctions, we must focus on our own problem first many of which, if addressed, will positively affect the environment.

The Gaia hypotheses. Yes the world does renew itself, but it can take millions of years. At the rate of extinction for plants and animals, the human race will be extinct far before the earth is rejuvenated.

But it will be rejuvinated. The best way to go about it is to just step back. Humans need to get out of the picture and stop messing things up. Remember, no good deed goes unpunished. We presume we know what is right and it never occurs to us as humans that we could be wrong about something, especially something so massive.

That attitude is in direct opposition to human progress.

No, what we need to do as humans is progess; we need to come to an understanding of our connection to the natural world. We need to make progress with regard to war, overpopulation, etc., and when the understanding is reached, and our own problems addressed, then a solution with regard to species extinction will happen.

Could not log onto ATS this evening... never happened before. Hmmm

this includes an understanding that we can't control nature (eg. attempting to save biodiversity, destroying nature).

We know more than enough to realize that our actions (over-hunting, poaching, habitat constriction, over harvesting, etc.) are harmful. The human race can survive just fine without the extreme overuse of our resources. We CAN control the effects we have on nature.

No matter what situation you look at, somewhere, something more pressing is happening. You cannot dismiss this problem simply because there are, in YOUR opinion, more important issues to be addressed. This issue is very important, and it will not just go away with time, as some problems will. In fact, this is an issue that is bound to worsen.
Animals are not the only organisms that are threatened. Plants have an immeasurable impact on our daily lives, from the air we breathe, to the water we drink, and the food we eat.

Of the top 150 prescription drugs in the United States, for example, 118 were originally derived from plants, fungi, and other species.

But the vast majority of plants, fungi, and microorganisms have yet to be tested for potential medicinal properties, and the opportunities for doing so are being irreversibly diminished.[1]

Plant extinction may have grave consequences on the human race.

Something we have yet to consider is a widespread belief that animals have intrinsic value, or that they have fundamental rights to existence, independent of their utility to humans. If you buy into this belief, animals are a very precious part of our planet, and are deserving of our respect and protection.

Did I ever say we shouldn't pursue potential medicinal benefits of animals? No, I didn't. It's not necessary to do more to prevent further species extinctions, we must focus on our own problem first many of which, if addressed, will positively affect the environment.

You may not have typed that we should not, but your proposals to not increase our opposition to extinction indicates otherwise. And if we wish to pursue these medical advances, we must secure a strong population of the animals, which we have not. Opposition to greater animal protection is opposition to this medical research. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

But it will be rejuvinated. The best way to go about it is to just step back. Humans need to get out of the picture and stop messing things up. Remember, no good deed goes unpunished. We presume we know what is right and it never occurs to us as humans that we could be wrong about something, especially something so massive.

The earth�s rejuvenation in millions of years will not benefit mankind. You cannot simply say that it will happen, and that it is enough.

I�m not quite sure where the whole �good deeds� analogy comes into play, but there can be no mistake. Over-polluting our world, causing the wasteful death and extinction of millions of plants and animals, and otherwise contributing to the planet�s destruction, is WRONG. You cannot, in any way, put a spin on the current situation and say it could be right. You cannot confuse people into thinking that the scope of this problem is to massive to judge correctly. It isn�t. All credible signs point to major problems in the future if we do not take greater corrective measures.

[1] www.ucsusa.org...

Apologies for my lateness once again... Very busy week... exams, papers, work, work... ack!

We know more than enough to realize that our actions (over-hunting, poaching, habitat constriction, over harvesting, etc.) are harmful. The human race can survive just fine without the extreme overuse of our resources. We CAN control the effects we have on nature.

Sure, we can. but as I've already said before it is acceptable to do so by those involved in poachng, overharvesting, etc., it must become known to us as humans that we are directly connected with nature. Otherwise, no matter the argument, things will not fly. Also, another way to look at it is to question whether humans can live just fine without overhunting, and overharvesting, especially in third world countries where overharvesting of forests may be caused by overpopulation causing people to inhabit forests, thus cutting them down so the land can be worked, and overhunting being caused by overpopulation or famine as well. Solutions for these human problems first will positively affect the environment.


Are you going to tell me that the overpopulation of OUR planet is not more important than biodiversity? Are you going to tell me that the systematic mass murder of groups of our fellow humans based on their ethnic groups or religion is not more important than biodiversity? In finding solutions to our own problems we will aid nature and biodiversity.

Plant extinction may have grave consequences on the human race.

This debate is about prevention of further extinction of animal species.

Something we have yet to consider is a widespread belief that animals have intrinsic value, or that they have fundamental rights to existence, independent of their utility to humans. If you buy into this belief, animals are a very precious part of our planet, and are deserving of our respect and protection.

Certainly, but perhaps try applying that to humans and then tell me again that it's just my opinion that human problems such a war, genocide and overpopulation aren't more important. Can you, as a human, do that?

With regard to medical research on animals... The scientists should hop to it while they can. We don't need more medicine anyway, in the process we're just creating superbugs that become a further threat to us as humans. We're dimishing our natural immunities by relying on drugs.

What we need to do is step back. Do less, not more. In extricating ourselves from the situation we can let things be resolved naturally.



I need sleep, goodnight.

CLOSING STATEMENT

The world is in a dire case of mass extinction; one of the 6th greatest in the planets history.

Ignoring this problem means turning our backs on some of the greatest medical advances, in addition to losing precious scientific resources.

Granted, there are more important issues. Mankind has its problems within its own sphere. However, this problem will become increasingly worse the longer we ignore it. Left unchecked, mass extinction could threaten mankind�s very existence. The world is doing its best to counter terrorism, genocide, and the like. Are you suggesting that we cannot do our best to save the environment at the same time? It is na�ve to suggest that we cannot focus on more than one issue at once.

Technically, in the opening statement, we were instructed to debate the importance of animal extinction, but the debate is labeled �biodiversity�. If you care to look it up, biodiversity means: "The variability among living organisms on the earth, including the variability within and between species and within and between ecosystems." It includes both plant and animal species and ecosystems. Therefore, if we are to discount any argument regarding plant life, we must also disregard any argument including the term biodiversity. In the interest of simplicity, I will assume we will not.

We don't need more medicine anyway.

You are deeply misinformed if you believe this. At a point in our society where as a male you have a 67% chance of having cancer as you age [1], you suggest we need no more medicine? You talk about world problems, much of the world is impoverished and diseased, and you suggest that we need no more medicine. Superbugs? Is this something you read from a science fiction book? When was the last time a man-made superbug caused an epidemic? Unless the superbugs you are referring to are penicillin resistant staff germs, which ARE NOT man made. [2] (They result from the population taking antibiotics unneeded) This just illustrates my point. These �superbugs� require new medicine, which needs to be researched to counter dangerous illnesses.

In extricating ourselves from the situation we can let things be resolved naturally.

Here we go again. Left unchecked, the current rate of extinction will not be recovered from for MILLIONS of years. Mankind will be long gone by then.

Animal researchers cannot �hop to it� when the species that require studying are endangered! That�s the whole point! In order to study these animals, they need to be removed form the endangered lists, but that is not possible unless we do more.

As I have tried to illustrate through the course of this debate, mankind MUST do more to prevent a loss of biodiversity. Our continuance on this planet depends on it.

It has been a pleasure debating this topic. Thanks to my opponent. Best of luck to the winner in the championship round.

[1] www.nci.nih.gov...
[2] messenger-inquirer.com...

Thanks for a lively debate, Rain King

you suggest we need no more medicine? You talk about world problems, much of the world is impoverished and diseased, and you suggest that we need no more medicine.

Most diseases wreaking havoc in poorer regions of the world have medicines availible to treat them, however, due to pharmaceutical companies prices, they are not affordable. Now are you suggesting this would change even if more medicines were found in the rain forest?

I don't think so.

Superbugs? Is this something you read from a science fiction book? When was the last time a man-made superbug caused an epidemic?

Don't put words in my mouth. We're creating superbugs by massive reliance on pharamceuticals which cause the bacteria to evolve to the point where the prevalent strain is resistant to drugs formerly used to treat them. Survival of the fittest, in this case survival of germs that have natural immunities to said drugs allowing their population to proliferate while the others who aren't immune die off.

Unless the superbugs you are referring to are penicillin resistant staff germs, which ARE NOT man made. [2] (They result from the population taking antibiotics unneeded) This just illustrates my point. These �superbugs� require new medicine, which needs to be researched to counter dangerous illnesses.

Oh yes! More medicine that doctors can overprescribe and we can be over reliant on once again?


Humans needn't do any more than they are already doing to prevent further species extiction. Programs for breeding in captivity and other animal sanctuaries that ban hunting and work to fight poaching are sufficient. There will not be a need for these types of sanctuaries or programs when humans finally become conscious of their deep connection to nature. Progress is being made. If more is done humans will become alienated, lifes sustinence will be lost in the form of farm lands in third world countries, economies based on logging will collapseand put many people out of work.

Also very important in this is the imposition of Western ideals on third world countries where most habitat destruction that results in threatening animal species occurs. This is yet another case of "West knows Best"with regards to ethics, while at the same time disregarding the means people use for sustinence in such areas. What humans are doing at present is more than sufficient, we need not do more.

The judging squadron has been launched, results should be airdropped in in a few days.

Results are in, and Rain King defeats parrhesia by a margin of 6-1. Well done to parrhesia for making it to the semi finals of this tournament.

Some Judges comments:

parrhesia painted a pretty picture but there was no substance, and at times her arguments seemed pretty muddled with no focus. Rain King kept it simple and stuck to their guns. Well done.

Parr argued well but her fundamental thesis, "when humans finally become conscious of their deep connection to nature," was never explained or supported. It was a kind of flowery afterthought. Her logical implication was that we should wait and when this epiphany strikes humanity only then will we, in the words of the topic, start "doing more to prevent animal species becoming extinct." So, she also contradicted her argument, which was to argue the negative.

Along with making a clear case that the world is dying and, more importantly, something needs to be done, Rain King made a very rainy day for Parrhesia and ascends to the Final Grand Battle Room.

For goodness sakes, this was an absolute joy to read. In as much, it was one of the most difficult to have to choose a winner. or for that matter, a loser. Both debators presented well written, well argued, and well sourced arguments. Kudos to both and great job. Parrhesia went to the forefront, then it swung back to Rain King and continued vice versa till its close. My final vote went with Rain King, in that his/her responses were more persuasive overall. To be perfectly honest, I almost tossed a coin on this one. Before I close, I want to say that both debators, as members of ATS, did a most excellent job and they, as with this particular debate, should be held in great esteem for what they represent to all of us. I wish to sincerely thank both debators and ATS membes for their efforts and for hearty congratulations for doing such a great job on this one.
I do so look forward to seeing both in action again in the near future. Both should be proud of this accomplishment and neither have no reason to hang their heads in defeat nor in disappointment. Great job peeps!

I had to read this one over-and-over, it was so tough to decide a winner! In the end I have to go with Rain King, who made some great points that really made me think and examine my personal position. Good work to the both of you!

I don't share Parrhesia optimistic vision that everything will work out without human intervention. He hasn't proven otherwise, while I think Rain King did show that we know enough to understand that we can't leave the current rate of extinction uncontrolled. The disadvantages are just too large. Parrhesia was right to point out to that the debate was about animal extinction, but I think Rain King's ideas remain valid. Both participants used their sources well, but I think their debates could use a bit more structure. In the end, I think Rain King has the debate.

A difficult topic to debate. Like a catch 22 situation. I felt that the person that backed their side the best was Rain King.

Good luck to Rain King in the championship match.