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.

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.

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.

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.