It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Challenge Match: PatrickGarrow17 vs. SonoftheSun: Humanity will survive longer than Earth

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 07:19 PM
Thanks to everyone involved in making these debates possible. I am having a great time participating.

SonoftheSun and I have decided to examine the surviving potential of humanity, specifically as it compares to the planet we live on.

My opponent deserves a nod of gratitude as well, for accepting this topic.




Which will outlast the other?

Some scenarios to consider:

1. Humanity goes extinct before ever living off our Earth.

2. Humanity is able to develop communities in space, but they all also die before Earth disappears.

3. A steller/galactic event causes both Earth and humanity to perish simultaneously.

4. Humanity develops habitats off of space, which continue to prosper after the Earth is gone.

I will be showing why case #4 is the most likely to occur.

This is a highly speculative debate. We are talking about billions of years into the future. And, we have no definitive theory on how, or when, Earth will meet it's end. There is one scenario that seem most likely:

Earth will be consumed when our Sun expands into a Red Giant. There is a possibility that Earth would be knocked out of the sun's gravitational field, and float off into space. But, more likely than not Earth would be vaporized. This scenario is estimated to occur some few billions of years from

There may be possibilities where the Earth is destroyed before the Sun runs it's course. These are generally difficult to prove: alien attack, maybe humans destroy the planet themselves (LHC accident, antimatter bomb?), a giant comet hits and shatters the planet.

These types of things could theoretically happen with a human population in space, and creating a win-scenario for my position. Alas, I can't base my argument at all on these types of things. Too weak in the proof and probability department.

So, I will stick to the notion that humanity will out survive Earth, and not by some freak accident but we will out survive our home planet based on it's highest longevity potential.

Listen, people of Earth: Everything’s going to be fine. All we have to do is survive another century or two without self-destructing as a species. Then we’ll get off this rock, spread throughout space, and everything will be all right.
Stepehen Hawking's take

The strength of my position is the adaptability and versatility of human survival. Given some technological advances, we can survive basically anywhere. Meanwhile, I don't see the Earth deciding to float off to a more stable place at any time in the future.

Materials, energy, propulsion, fuel, food, computing, biotech, medicine, and every other discipline stands to make significant leaps and bounds.

It would seem to me that my opponents position would have to be that some event will stop us from progressing NOW.

Real indications are that this is a low factual probability. It would take something unusually catastrophic to squash all technological advancement permanently.

Even in the case of World War Three, it is likely that knowledge would survive along with some percentage of the population and they would be left with an opportunity to develop and leave Earth.

Even in the case of a Yellowstone eruption, there would be some prepared survivors with the opportunity to rebuild.

The reality is that humanity is only a short time away from developing the types of technology required to survive off of planet Earth indefinitely. On the brink, as we like to say.

Common people may see no light at the end of the tunnel in any of the disaster scenarios getting tossed around, but the fact is that there are segments of the population that are quite prepared to rebuild after a short term global society collapse.

Let's continue to remember that even this type of event is not likely to happen, but realize that it's possibility really doesn't do much to discredit my position.

All that is required for humans to survive longer than planet Earth is a maximum of a few hundred years in which technology progresses. These years don't even have to happen now, they could just as well happen in two thousand years after some conflict and stagnation.

I propose that there is a significantly higher probability that humans will gain the ability to survive in space at some point, than there is that they will not.

I also propose that humans will seize this opportunity, and within a relatively short time after such technology is available we will have sizeable colonies in space.

From there, humanity will steadily spread further away from Earth and exponentially increase our chances of super long term survival in the universe.

Listen to Hawking, this strategy makes sense.

It is the logical thinking and innovative capacity that have brought us this far in the universal game.

SonoftheSun may think we've peaked, I think we've still got a pretty good climb to the summit of our true potential.

As we continue in this debate, I will highlight some of the technological advancements that are expected to come in the relatively near future. I will provide evidence that humanity is not faced with a realistic and imminent threat of extinction. It is my expectation, that in this debate of probable outcomes, we will come to decide that humanity eventually creating a sustainable society beyond our Earth is more likely than not.

This is a timely discussion, as we approach the date that some have tabled as the end of everything. 12/21/2012. My hope is that I may temper some of the cynicism, encourage people to look beyond the seemingly meager outlook of their individual lives, and see that humanity is likely to be around and prosperous for a long time.

Thanks for reading, the podium belongs to SonoftheSun.

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 09:56 AM
Hello friends,

Welcome to what should be an interesting debate between PatrickGarrow17 and I.

I say an interesting debate since the subject itself, while being very serious, is wall plastered with various possibilities, some are fictionous and funny and some are...well...deadly. Would humans outlive planet Earth? As my esteemed opponent has already mentioned, this is a highly speculative topic but as I hold the “con” position, I will try to demonstrate that odds are not in our favor. Actually, as I will show, humankind probably won’t survive those odds!

Thank you to PatrickGarrow17 for elegantly launching the match and, as always, my deepest thanks to moderators and viewers for making this board an all time favorite! Hope you enjoy!


Humanity Will Survive Longer Than Earth – The Odds


Opening Statement

Dear viewers,

My esteemed opponent has brought forward four distinct possibilities, and I quote:

1. Humanity goes extinct before ever living off our Earth.

2. Humanity is able to develop communities in space, but they all also die before Earth disappears.

3. A steller/galactic event causes both Earth and humanity to perish simultaneously.

4. Humanity develops habitats off of space, which continue to prosper after the Earth is gone.

As Patrick tends to believe in the #4 scenario (a 25% chance of survival according to this quote), I will show you that the answer most probably resides in #1, Humanity goes extinct before ever living off our Earth, and that our chances are way slimmer than 25%, if existent at all.

On the other hand, the second, third and fourth scenarios – which are also viable - would leave us millenniums to work with but anyone looking around, reading on our current status of affairs and scientific essays would easily conclude that we have already passed a very dangerous line, a dangerous mark, a point of no return. It is not a comfortable position that I sit on but we must face facts.


An extinction level event is a catastrophic occurrence which has the potential to terminate entire species of animals and plants: eg, to cause a mass extinction. Such events are decidedly rare, but geological evidence shows that they have happened on many occasions since multicellular life became abundant on the planet almost a billion years ago.


Yes, we are animals. To think otherwise is not only arrogant but dangerous. Our biased superiority issues over the animal kingdom and the natural flow of this planet will be our downfall. We’re already on that slide, and have been for a while.

Odds of going extinct are overwhelmingly elaborate. Multiple scenarios vary from serious degradation of our climate to not so serious alien invasions. Nuclear annihilation is a very serious nightmare and a bodily planetary impact, although being minimal statistically, is nevertheless a very serious threat. Who hasn’t heard the saying “It’s not a matter of if, but when...”.

I admit that I like my esteemed opponent’s optimism that we could leave earth before something happens but as I mentioned, odds are not in our favor. I personally (simply my opinion) believe that we do not have the luxury of millenniums to get it together but the ongoing countdown has a few hundred years left, max.

Talking of opinions, there are scientists out there that believe that we have already entered the process of a sixth extinction event. Chances are that they know what they’re talking about.

Today, many scientists think the evidence indicates a sixth mass extinction is under way. The blame for this one, perhaps the fastest in Earth's history, falls firmly on the shoulders of humans.


Within the second post, I will extrapolate on the strongest possibilities:

[color=gold]Nuclear Annihilation

Worldwide Pandemic

No need to say that those are extremely fatal possibilities, where odds are the highest and the risk is already severe.

But nothing comes close, statistically, to this one – the evidence suggested by scientists - , which you will get to read about, in my third and final post:

[color=gold]Climate Change

The symptoms are already there. The planet is coughing and is about to get feverish. Evidence is all over the place, worldwide, and I will show it to you. Statistically, by the year 2100, a mere 88 years away, half the animal, floral and sea life will have disappeared. How long before it gets to us humans?

The answer to this question is not fun but a reality just the same.

Not. Long. Enough.

Thank you for reading. Back to you, kind Sir !

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:48 PM
First, a clarifications:

Presenting four scenarios in which humans and/or Earth cease to exist, does not imply an equal likelihood for each.

Let it be clear that my position is humans will progress to the level of developing sustainable habitats throughout space, and these will most likely exist beyond the few billion years or so from now when Earth expires.

Now, refutations:

My opponent has pointed out that extinctions are historically common, and that some scientists suggest we are presently living in a mass extinction period.

This remains, at the moment a theory. Nevertheless, it poses no immediete threat to the prospect of humanity developing the advanced technology we need over a few hundred years.

Mass extinctions include events in which 75 percent of the species on Earth disappear within a geologically short time period, usually on the order of a few hundred thousand to a couple million years.

As of now, scientists are suggesting that we just might be in the early years of a mass extinction that will occur over the course of maybe a few hundred thousand years.

That gives Earth between three and 22 centuries to reach the point of mass extinction if nothing is done to stop the problem. (The wide range is a factor of the uncertainty in the data and different rates of extinction found in various species.) The good news, Barnosky said, is that the total loss so far is not devastating. In the last 200 years, the researchers found, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct.

Also, it's escalation is preventable:

So can we fix it? Yes, there's time to cut dependence on fossil fuels, alleviate climate change and commit to conservation of habitat, the study scientists say. The more pressing question is, will we?

There is probably opportunities for humanity to reverse or curb the loss by being more ecologically conscious and developing better environmental engineering tech.

Other scenarios presented by SonoftheSun include climate change, nuclear annihilation and worldwide pandemic.

Leaving pre-concieved notions about our future aside, let's realize that each of these has a low probability of happening.

Nuclear war. We have lived in a nuclear armed world for 70 years and this nightmare has not become reality. Diplomacy and international governing bodies are stronger than ever, and prevention of such an ultimate conflict is far more likely than not.

The risk of a child born today suffering an early death due to nuclear war is at least 10 percent,

I'll even bump that to 15% for you. 15% chance of nuclear war over the next 50 years or so.

85% that each of us survive war.

This Stanford professor's analysis essentially says that 10% of people born after 2009 will die from nuclear war. This doesn't really slow down our ultimate technological progress in a major way.

Not concrete figures at all, but it gives us an idea.


Humanity has survived and progressed despite pretty regular viral pandemics. For example, the pandemic of 1920 killed 20 million people and there was no hitch in technological progress. The odds are somewhat high that an exotic virus will give us a roadbump in the 21st, but they are very low that it will be to the level of completely halting all progress.

Climate Change

Similar to pandemics, this will probably create setbacks. But it is unlikely to seriously threaten our existence and send our society so far backward.

I think saying humanity has a 70% chance of making aggregate technological progress in the 21st century is generous to my opponent, and still in my favor.

Also, we are more prepared for disaster than ever.

We have the world seed vault, essentially all knowledge stored digitally, underground structures...

Even in the near worse case scenarios, humanity is likely to emerge once again and build anew.

The constant threats we face may even fast-track the cause of developing space travel and colonization..

When forecasting the future, we must consider history. And if we do so, we find that many of these threats existed in the past. Yet, humanity has progressed wildly.

In fact, all of these threats were present in 1950..and look at the progress we've made technologically since then.

Why would we not suspect it is likely that in the year 2100, we will be more advanced than today?

And if the trend is consistent, we would be at or on the brink of what is required to live in space.

It is far more probable that humanity will remain continuous in advancement than not, and have the time required to develop our emerging technology.

Emerging Tech Graphic

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
Dear viewers,

Although this debate is highly speculative, we really have to wonder if we could survive earth, as a species. While my opponent is showing good intentions that a human extinction could only occur through thousands or billions of years, in order to build his case for mankind to live in space, he might be wrong.

Time is No longer a luxury

To believe that:

In fact, all of these threats were present in 1950.. looking at totally different facts than what I’m reading and presenting.

[color=gold]Nuclear Annihilation

A Nuclear fallout wasn’t as much as a threat in the fifties as much as a fear of remembering what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The real threat appeared in the early eighties, following the cold war and the nuclear proliferation. Nowadays, we have nuclear arsenals that are a million times more dangerous and effective than back in the fifties. There is simply no comparison.

The precise number of nuclear weapons in the world’s arsenals is not known. More than 128 000 nuclear warheads have been produced since 1945.

Nuclear capability is no longer restricted to two major powers but available to numerous countries, on all continents. The weapons themselves have more than 2000 times the fire power than back then. An all out nuclear exchange would kill millions within the very first hour. It would then kill billions within the next few hours and the remains of what was known as mankind would slowly but surely die a slow painful death, due to radiation exposure, dust clouds, contaminated food and water. In easy terms, it would kill us all.

A mass extinction event would occur, similar to that which wiped out the dinosaurs and 70% of all other species 65 million years ago.

Never in our history, have we been so close to a Nuclear Armageddon. The rise of Middle Eastern issues with the West is an everyday challenge and an ongoing threat. The thread is extremely thin and gets thinner every year. While treaties have been signed to reduce the arsenals, more and more are constructed every day.

How long before an escalation leads to the first mushroom cloud?

Remember this well: It will only take one.

[color=gold]Pandemic Threat

A Pandemic is as serious as a nuclear threat, if not more.

Chemical and biological warfare was but a joke in the fifties but it has become such a serious issue nowadays that treaties have been signed and forty percent of the stocks have already been destroyed. The biggest fear with a chemical or biological agent is that it is easy to spread. Through the air, the water supplies, the food chain.

A simple change in the strain of smallpox would kill billions, easily and accurately. Smallpox, sarin, vx, anthrax are interesting but nothing compares to Novichoks, ever heard of those?

Novichoks are nerve agents. To make them, two ordinary chemicals are mixed to form a toxic product. As recently as 1990, at least three novichoks existed (novichok-5, novichok-#, and novichok-7), but whether large quantities exist today is unknown. All novichok agents are more toxic than VX. Some may be up to 10 times more toxic [source: Stewart]. They may also work differently than the nerve agents listed here, possibly rendering existing antidotes ineffective. The Soviet Union began making novichoks in the 1980s.

Let me emphasize:

1: but whether large quantities exist today is unknown.

2: possibly rendering antidotes ineffective.

The perfect weapon: Targeting humans only: Everyone dies, everything else remains intact. Nuclear might be passé afterall...

In my third and final post, I will show you that if a nuclear war or a biochemical war doesn’t kill us first, the climate will, without a doubt and within a few hundred years.

[color=gold]Rebuttal – Living in space

Living in space is nowhere near like living on earth. To start, the body is in a totally different environment that makes it weaker and thinner. It takes our astronauts training just to learn to eat, stay neat, evacuate and do everyday chores in space, for a lengthy period of time. A short visit to the ISS is a very different thing than to stay there forever.

Replenishment issues, oxygen, food but most importantly, water, medical issues, psychological endurance...I would really enjoy if my opponent would show us how all of these could be achieved, on a daily basis, in space, for a large quantity of humans that would stay there, forever. Could this really be accomplished within the next few hundred years? Because, with all due respect, showing us a graph that demonstrates that we’ll have (perhaps) created a solarsail by 2040 just doesn’t convince me at all.


Thank you for reading.

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:12 PM
If the trend of our civilization's technical progress continues at it's current rate, uninterrupted, the chances of developing sustainable space colonies is high.

Even if our progression is slowed, we should consider the preparations in place for rebuilding and continuity.

Is there any real reason to think that we will not, at some point in the future, have these types of technologies at our disposal:


This is one of our holy grail techs. Products associated with nanotech are already on the market, and are expected to be ubiquitous in a few decades. By engineering material structure at the atomic level, products will operate with an efficiency unseen in today's world. Building strength, medical robots, computing power, catalysts...everything stands to improve from focusing our engineering at the microscopic level.

Nanotechnology is a gateway science that is intertwined with all other advancements.

Quantum Computing

Data storage and analysis will play a major role in our eventual ascension to the galaxy. A sophisticated quantum computer, which also seems but a few decades away from realization, will give us endless capabilities. Combining the capacity to store an, essentially, infinite amount of data with a sophisticated understanding of how to build at the molecular level and the realms of opportunity expand exponentially.

3D printing will solve any issues when it comes to resources. There is no shortage of subatomic particles in the galaxy, and any material can be potentially broken down and restructured into a steak, water, or penicillin.

There will likely be many synthetic compounds that provide people with an advanced nutrition, efficient medicine, and psychological stability.

A parallel advancement in biotechnology will further enhance the well being and sustainability of a space colony.

Once we are in space, maintaining a society with these technologies would not be so difficult.

The real hurdle is getting there...

But there is hope on this front as well. One possibility is the development of fusion propulsion. We will be able to engineer spacecraft to be quite strong, thanks to nanotech. It is likely that most of the building materials will be fortified with carbon nanotubes, or some similar structure.

Developing reliable fusion will allow us to travel through space at least twice as fast as we do now. And remember, fuel is abundant because we can restructure matter into whatever molecules we want.

Perhaps even more likely than fusion is ionizing fuel into plasma, a tech that NASA is developing: VASIMR

All of the stuff I'm talking about here is not only realistic but likely in just the next few decades.

In a few decades, enhanced versions of current propulsion technology could reduce travel time to Mars from about a year to a few months…

These up and coming propulsion systems will allow us to travel through space faster, and refuel as we go up there. As long as the systems hold up, you could theoretically travel indefinitely.

The precursors for sustainable space colonies are probably going to be around by 2050. So, it is not unreasonable that given the accelerating rate of development these type of settlements could be prominent by 2500 at the latest.

Technology will not stop advancing there, either. It is an endless progression...all the way up until we unravel the mysteries of dark energy, antimatter, and untold possibilities that are now unforeseen.

It is a fact that we are on the verge of making living off the planet a reality. These technologies are right around the corner. The concepts, experimental results, blueprints are already stored permanently.

It would take a cataclysm much greater than a war, pandemic, natural disaster that kills a few billion people. Even such a disaster at that level is not likely.

Accepting my opponents position is essentially saying that humanity is more likely than not to peak in the early 21st century. This probability isn't there.

One might think too many things would have to go right to reach such a level of civilization to survive for billions of years, beyond our own planet.

The thing is we are close right now.

There is not sufficient evidence that we are that close to collapse. The world still functions.

Observing our current world shows us that more would have to go wrong for us not to develop communities in space, than would have to go right for the dream to be realized.

This debate is of extrapolation and the trend is up

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:48 AM
Before closing, I would like to thank PatrickGarrow17 for being a formidable opponent. I enjoyed reading your stance on our future and I sincerely hope that viewers and all involved have enjoyed this match as much as I have.


The Point of No Return


Closing Statement

As we come to the end of this match, I still wonder. Is there a possibility than we have enough time to prepare for a space evading scenario?

As much as I would like to answer yes, for a brief moment forgetting that this topic is so speculative, I also hesitate to answer a definitive no, yet I will answer, and show, that our chances – if there are any – are dangerously slim. Admittedly too slim for my liking, imagining the end of our species is not a stance that makes me jump with joy. But there are points of references, evidence, that we have entered a sixth extinction event and that the time for changing things around is no longer a luxury but on the very border of being wishful thinking.

While we rejoice in our vanity of being superior beings, we are the ones that inevitably will cause our own downfall. The blame isn’t on aliens, or our cultural differences or God even but on our own shoulders.

• Overpopulation being a concern. We grew FIVE times within the last century.At the rate we are going at, the point isn’t far away where we will lack resources. We conquer, we abuse, we over consume and we are careless. The impact we have on the biodiversity is nowhere to be matched, not only in reports and recorded history but since this planet exists. We are causing natural habitat destruction at unprecedented speed. The wildlife, the flora, the marine life as we know it today will have been half decimated in less than a century. That is a fact.

• We did, and still do, contribute to climate change. This is where the highest risk resides. Many of us do not see it. But the numbers tell. The previous five extinctions had to do with carbone dioxide and temperatures. ALL OF THEM. And this time is no different:

Pre-industrialization carbon dioxide levels were 270 ppm; today they are 390 ppm and predicted to to between 540 and 970 ppm by 2100, unless we change our ways. Tellingly, the last five extinction were associated with both high levels carbon dioxide and temperatures.

As a consequence, habitats are rapidly being destroyed and polluted with over 50% of tropical rainforests and their rich biodiversity decimated. Moreover, we are now feeling the cumulative affect of 200 years of burning fossil fuels as glacial and polar ice begin to melt and the planet’s climate quickly shifts.

Scary stuff.

As of now, scientists are suggesting that we just might be in the early years of a mass extinction that will occur over the course of maybe a few hundred thousand years.

Unfortunately, I must disagree. I so wish we had a few hundred thousand years. The reports show that we have anywhere between as little as three hundred years, as much as two thousand years and predictably – in the scenario that we don’t start massive changes in our habits extremely soon – a dead end at five hundred years left.

Also, it's escalation is preventable

No longer, it isn’t. More and more scientists are taking the lead in saying that we are within a sixth extinction event. At this point, we could, perhaps, possibly still slow it down and that is almost utopia. The facts and data are showing that our planet is changing at an accelerated rate.

Scientists report to authority. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be prevalent of warning the common folk. Don’t take my word for it. Yet, once in a while, the authority speaks. Here is one case where Prince Charles could not be any clearer:

Mankind faces extinction, the Prince of Wales has warned, unless humans transform our lifestyles to stop mass consumption, run away climate change and destruction of wildlife.

Referring to himself as “an endangered species”, he warned that the world is already in the “sixth extinction event”, with species dying out at a much faster rate than at any time since the death of most of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Scary stuff indeed.

There is not sufficient evidence that we are that close to collapse. The world still functions.

While I disagree, I enjoyed this match and do hope that your enthusiasm for a space survival of the species is equally and factually our biggest hope. I sincerely do.

Thank you, viewers, members and staff alike, for reading.


posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:45 AM

The quality of this debate was astounding, and as I read both individuals positions, I knew it would be very hard to decide a winner. While a very speculative topic, both opponents took their stances and followed through from start to end, never wavering their positions, and as a result, created a very interesting debate to read.

Now the hard part, deciding a winner.

PartrickGarrow17 opened strongly, presenting a series of ideas, and choose one to focus on. He very cleverly left himself plenty of "wiggle room" for the rest of the debate by presenting realistic possibilities.

SonoftheSun opened with the theory of facing a sixth extinction event, but was a bit weak on explaining the nature of the the previous five, which would have strengthened his position, and could have added a bit of detail about extraterrestrial impactors. He does promise the reader wanting more information, by addressing other methods of human extinction: nuclear war, pandemics, and climate change.

Patrick narrowly wins round one.

Patrick continues the next round countering his opponent nicely, stating that mass extinctions occur rather slowly, and gives the impression that humanity could "fix" things given the time. He goes on to refute his opponent by stating an 85% survival rate for nuclear war, that pandemics don't hinder tech development, and that climate change is not an immediate threat to our existence. He relies heavily on the assumption that technology will be developed to save us, and will continue to advance.

Son counters well by insisting that we may not have the time to correct our mistakes. He goes on to state that a nuclear holocaust is only one warhead, in the wrong hands, away. He furthers his position by bringing up the issue of a pandemic, but de-rails it slightly with a slant towards biological warfare, a larger possibility IMO, in the hands of terrorists. He does well to refute the complications to living in space for extended periods, which definitely hurts his opponent's stance.

Son narrowly wins round two.

Partrick finishes out the debate optimistically, stating the current rates of tech advancement is sufficient for off-world growth, re-enforcing his original stance. He presents cutting edge and realistic possibilities: nanotech, quantum computing, and 3-d printing, all of which are being heavily researched. Missing, however, from his presentation is the privatization of space travel, which will make it much more cost effective to travel to space, and the possibilities of finding raw resources that would fund such private endeavors. Possible propulsion systems are not overlooked, however, and he is correct in his position that the development is still in progress. He finishes his position with this noteworthy quote: "It would take a cataclysm much greater than a war, pandemic, or natural disaster that kills a few billion people. Even such a disaster at that level is not likely." He gives the inspiration that humanity cannot be held back.

Son finishes with a hard reality check, stating that our chances for survival are slim. He places the blame squarely on where it needs to be placed, on humanity's shoulders. His statements on overpopulation, however, lead me towards Patrick's stance, that we need to get off this rock, and expand. I find his limit of 500 years to be quite limiting, given his opponent's position of a growing trend of advancement in technology. He tries to re-enforce his climate change position but, no disrespect intended, I did a *facepalm* when he quoted Prince Charles as an authority. He might as well have used a quote from Al Gore. Not a good way to finish a debate.

Round three to Patrick, and thus, the debate.

This was a very hard debate to judge due to its speculative nature and dependence on probabilities. PatrickGarrow17's positions are completely hinged on the potential technological advancement of the human race and that one day we may be able to venture off this planet before the race is wiped-out. SonoftheSun's argument incorporates a much broader list of dangers to the human race and delves into the reality that the extinction of species has and will continue to occur. Since we are talking about a debate based on probabilities, I have to give the debate to SonoftheSun. I believe he was able to provide numerous examples in which Mankind may not have the time to advance technologically and leave Earth before one danger or another takes us out. Great debate!

The Debate was a tie. The tie was broken with...

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:48 AM

So I read over the debate, and I really hate to say this, especially after both people poured alot into that debate, but I think it should be a tie. Here's why. Both people presented valid arguments for their case. They both backed up there opinions and statements well, and provided real life examples as to why there opinion should stand. I should say too that both competitors lacked in the rebutle catagory. Niether one took the time to show why their information outwieghed the opponents. In this scenario neither of the combatants managed to sway my opinion to one or the other, and since I believe they both had the same weeknesses that this should end up a tie.

But because I have to swing one way or the other it would be towards PatrickGarrow17. I felt that he had a stronger basis in reality, most of the points that SonofSun brought about were simply too theroretical. Not enough basis around the world that we live in.

PatrickGarrow wins by an extremely narrow margin.

top topics


log in