Wack looking dude with a wacky view, this should be wacky.
@duncan_king How someone looks has nothing to do with a debate. That is in your own opinion. Not everyone thinks like you!
The extinctions on earth are not indiscriminate. Creatures which are going extinct are those humans have no use for. We have use for cows and chickens, which have use for grass and corn, which has use for the sun. If all these things are perfectly stable, which they are, then there's no threat to the food chain that humans are apart of. Most living things are apart of *a* food chain, but that doesn't mean they are all apart of the same food chain. There are many food chains. The chain we're on is doing pretty good.Just look up the cattle and poultry populations. There are more cows than humans and more chickens than humans. Obviously, we keep those populations pretty stable and they have increased with the human population.
@duncan_king if corn goes extinct, then what?
@benaynay We cultivate corn, so it won't.
@benaynay Literally, we would have to go extinct before the corn went extinct.
@duncan_king did you not hear about the recent shortage due to climate?
@duncan_king You say that the things going extinct are of no use to us. What happens when all that is gone? What is next? It's a chain that will not stop by the standards of today. Less plants, less animals by the day, everyday, But more and more population. Where are your facts about years to come?
suddenly got so quiet in here....
@krystinaaldrich If every single creature on earth went extinct which was not a part of the human food chain it would not effect the survival of humans. Humans have their food chain. Their food chain is doing rather excellent. We micromanage our own food. We even micromanage bees.Show me how our food is going extinct and you will say something. Until then, you have nothing. You're giving an idea more credit than it deserves because it is scary. That is flight response logic. Sorry, you're wrong. Thanks for playing.
@duncan_king they dont have any valid arguments. Just feelings.We eliminate Ebola and Smallpox because they are not useful to use and no other reason. We get to decide which life works may exist and share this planet and which ones do not. Sorry evolution determined that we should be in charge sorry you dont like nature's choices lol.
We don't eat bees, but if they went extinct...watch out.
@scubasteve someone who obviously get's it.
@scubasteve actually honey bees are an invasive species to the US the native americans even called them the white man's fly, if the honey bee went extinct there will be other pollinators to replace it with less competition, it might actually add more balance to the ecosystem.
@benaynay gets what? The “human virus”?
Regardless of what you might think, Ben has a valid argument.
@edgeofcenter "when added up, children are losing their toys.Dave is a child. Therefore he will lose all his toys."^this is not a valid argument. It is a fallacy of composition.
"The state of denmark is going bankrupt.Dave is a member if the state if denmark. Therefore dave is going bankrupt."
@edgeofcenter "between the two of us we had twenty fingers. You lost a finger. Therefore we are losing our total fingers. Therefore i am losing my fingers."^are you grasping how this is a fallacy?
@edgeofcenter Similarly, to say "the total species are going extinct. Humans, corn and cows are species, therefore they are going extinct" is a fallacy. Technically it's a fallacy of composition.Thus, not a valid argument.
@edgeofcenter "Americans are gaining weight.Paris Hilton is an american.Therefore Paris Hilton is gaining weight."
@duncan_king you completely destroyed their logic and they have no response lol.
I don't think people get it. If things keep going as they are now, we might not even make it to 2178. There are so many factors in why we won't. Population keeps going up on a daily. We may have "cows and chickens" now but what about the future? More people means more consumption! How long can our planet last when there are no trees, animals, or plants left? What are you going to eat? How will you clothe yourself? There will be nothing but void, empty waste everywhere! Than what?
@krystinaaldrich at best a large population decline, which subjectively would be very good for the environment, but very bad for human suffering. actually in the 1970s they predicted that we couldn't sustain 4 billion, but we can easily sustain 15 billion thanks to advancements in agriculture. basically GMOs are mankind's best friend.
@krystinaaldrich if human food stuffs (which we actively control along with the weather) decrease, then human populations will decrease. That hardly means extinction. The only element of our food chain that we dont micro manage, or cannot is weather. Well, at least not yet. Regardless, its not connected to the other ecosystems. Chickens, cows and all our vegetables dont live in the wild. They live on farms.
this should answer your main question as to why extinction is happening. https://youtu.be/UUeS-bePuUg?t=1783
This julian guy has got to be the biggest moron on the face of the planet. He just sits there laughing and smiling while not stating one fact. Period. Go back to school julian. Youre an idiot.
@hermanmlh are you one of my audience members from the live streams?
@hermanmlh No. You’re a troll fanboy of Ben’s, which means you’re probably a total moron, because this is honestly the biggest sack shit of shit I’ve ever heard, with flies all over it. You can debate me if you have any balls at all. I know you’re pussy and won’t do it. Lol.
@loren wow they sucked! Haha!
Damn kid. You got alot evidence n you dont get it??Cheers nay
@badcompany3004 like what? He admits that it’s because of overpopulation but can’t answer that it balances out.
This is suppose to be a debate,there was no debate here.This guy asked questions and Ben answered.Debate is supposed to be two people with different views debating those views..This guy doesnt even have a clear view on this topic.Not a debate!!Ben definitely was the winner of this debate,he stated fact after fact to which Julian just smiled with no facts to counter.
@brettkowski fair enough, i'm learning it was my 1st debate.
@benaynay you did great
@brettkowski is “yeah it’s irrevslant but just ket me keep talking” an answer? He even admitted his is worth more because of fracking? But what I’m wondering is, if Ben walked off a slope would you follow him?
Ben got a valid argument and the way you dress has nothing to do with this debate come on wake up dude
First off my whole problem is Julian. You want to debate yet came back with nothing. The whole intention of a debate is each person is supposed to come in with facts and information pertaining what they are debating. You had nothing. Before making a fool of yourself on social media maybe learn how to gather evidence and facts about your topic. Ben Very well said my friend.
@evelynrose92013 I said that overpopulation balances out and your friend can’t answer that. Shit attracts flies.http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
@evelynrose92013 Con doesn't have to prove anything.
Nay as a valid point and brought valid stuff to to table wish people woke up
@daniel_jongeward since you are too lazy to look shit up...hu·man/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/nounplural noun: humansa human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
@norcalnay I was actually just looking for your definition. but your definition is also inaccurate since humans are animals. But your classification is also very ignorant of earthlife in general, as is your agruement. Sourcing bad science does not a good argument make, especially when ignorant of how many new species are appearing alongside those disappearing, and this rate is only slightly increased so for one I think your math is way off. and also we have a competitive ecosystem, one which humans can and will alter to suit their means which is in their very nature. We could be very different in a hundred and 170 years, if certain stressors hit the entire population. But very unlikely there would be a human extinction event which by best calculations with help of nuclear war is only at 5%. You made an outrageous claim, you need outrageous evidence, and the evidence you brought forward is very short sighted. and I was overall dissatisfied with this debate, as "google it." seemed to be your main argument.
@daniel_jongeward apparently you haven't even done that. Try Google! You haven't even looked at the articles up top I presume either.
@edgeofcenter I looked the articles up but reject the findings that lead to an extinction event as early as 2178 nuclear war is by far more probable and thats at 5% by 2100
@daniel_jongeward "Sourcing bad science does not a good argument make, especially when ignorant of how many new species are appearing alongside those disappearing, and this rate is only slightly increased so for one I think your math is way off." - we lose 200 a day and only gain 50 leaving 150. In addition, how many of the new species discovered are rice, wheat, barley, hay, or corn? none.
@julian watch this brother, it explains a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPj6K9TR1Tk&fbclid=IwAR3E8Wo-1jHJ2HOoiiUhpn1BsUbXo9fsLODyRlGZPnW2lMmMg3sMS1-mSL0
This is not exactly a conspiracy theory, but the paranoids who side pro are giving it a similar handicap that conspiracy theorists and religious people grant their wild ideas. Its flight response logic. Its harder to discredit a fear in the minds of many because there is a survival risk to abandoning that fear. So they will prop up that fear by treating lousy arguments like gold and miniscule amounts of evidence as mountains. I suggest such people take a moment to analyze their own psychology. Paranoia makes us vulnerable to all sorts of silliness.
And btw, a 39 vote total for a quallout debate these days is immediately fishy to us. If there were ever a case of vote packing, this is it. Very uncool.
@human_by_choice ...but i'm sure if you agreed with the voting results you'd have no issue. The fact is, I have spent 5 years discussing all of these points with my viewers and have invited them all here to judge for themselves. If they disagree with me they will vote against me. The voting started out as a popularity contest because of course my opponent had a history of debating on qallout, but I didn't see you here complaining when his friends had all voted for his side. But suddenly here you are. Maybe check my math number before disagreeing. In addition, all of my statements can be backed up by facts. If you care to debate these facts, let me know. I also suggest you check the VIEW NUMBERS not just the votes. The vote numbers seem to coincide proportionately with the lower number viewed debates here. I have no issue with this system. If you disagree, stop attacking me and attack my argument. Good luck.
@norcalnay If I agreed with the voting results I would certainly have issue. You don't know me.
@duncan_king didn't see you complaining when my opponent was ahead due to obvious qallout recognition. psh. unreal.
I didnt notice the poll then because i hadnt voted yet. We never notice the polls because they usually only get 5 votes or so.
@bronsonkaahui looks like 69% of the voters disagree with you. ;) #winning
@trendynay good thing facts dont depend on majority opinion lol.
Nature chose us to determine which life may exist on this planet and which life may not. Sorry that you don't like nature's decision lol.