2 months ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
66 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 months ago

    Wack looking dude with a wacky view, this should be wacky.

  • 2 months ago

    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.

  • 2 months ago

    We don't eat bees, but if they went extinct...watch out.

  • 2 months ago

    Regardless of what you might think, Ben has a valid argument.

  • 2 months ago

    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?

    • 2 months ago

      @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.

    • 2 months ago

      @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.

  • 2 months ago

    this should answer your main question as to why extinction is happening. https://youtu.be/UUeS-bePuUg?t=1783

    • 2 months ago

      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.

      • 2 months ago

        @hermanmlh are you one of my audience members from the live streams?

      • 2 months ago

        @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.

    • 2 months ago

      @loren wow they sucked! Haha!

      • 2 months ago

        Damn kid. You got alot evidence n you dont get it??

        Cheers nay

      • 2 months ago

        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.

      • 2 months ago

        Ben got a valid argument and the way you dress has nothing to do with this debate come on wake up dude

        • 2 months ago

          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.

        • 2 months ago

          Nay as a valid point and brought valid stuff to to table wish people woke up

          • 2 months ago

            define humans?

            • 2 months ago

              @daniel_jongeward since you are too lazy to look shit up...
              hu·man
              /ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
              noun
              plural noun: humans
              a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.

            • 2 months ago

              @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.

            • 2 months ago

              @daniel_jongeward apparently you haven't even done that. Try Google! You haven't even looked at the articles up top I presume either.

            • 2 months ago

              @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

            • 2 months ago

              @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.

          • 2 months ago

            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.

            • 2 months ago

              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.

            • 2 months ago

              @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.

            • 2 months ago

              @norcalnay If I agreed with the voting results I would certainly have issue. You don't know me.

            • 2 months ago

              @duncan_king didn't see you complaining when my opponent was ahead due to obvious qallout recognition. psh. unreal.

            • 2 months ago

              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.

          • 2 months ago
          • 2 months ago

            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.