CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Isn't this called STEALING (LIGHTLY PUT, AS ANIMAL'S ARE MADE TO SUFFER BEFORE BEING ROBBED) as you are taking away something which belongs to another species??
Because the animals people like you kill for fur and bones, do NOT attack you. They are living their lives and you go and attack them.
why are our needs "selfish?"
Why is it wrong to steal?
We do not need to call ourselves evolved in order to be evolved. We already are.
Yeah, that's what I said. We are evolved. Proof: Killing animals for fun, sports, fur, leather, meat. Genocides, wars, occupation, plunder, colonization, nuclear bombs. All proofs of us being evolved.
By the way, do you know, 'humans are evolved' is said by humans? Nobody else says so? Nobody else can though....
Many things don't attack us that we kill (ants, trees, roaches, monkeys in experiments, etc.) Are they all innocent? Are you defining innocent as non-aggressor, no matter what the entity is?
They are living their lives and you go and attack them
Animals do the same to other animals for the sake of themselves. Should we have a wild kingdom police to ensure that animals are not wrongly attacked by other animals for the sake of innocence?
Why is it wrong to steal?
For ethical purposes, the infringement on another human's rights to life and property are found to be unacceptable in a society of human beings. Animals, on the other hand, do not live within our society. They are tools, not individuals.
Killing animals for fun, sports, fur, leather, meat. Genocides, wars, occupation, plunder, colonization, nuclear bombs. All proofs of us being evolved.
Most of that has little to do with evolution. Evolution uses natural selection in deciding what will continue to survive and reproduce. The reproduction continues genetics that are able to survive within an environment. Genetics and species that can't survive in an environment will not be able to reproduce as greatly, eventually weeding out any types of genetics or species that are inferior to the stronger genetics. As well, it continues mutations that are beneficial to a genetic strain.
humans are evolved' is said by humans?
Yes, because we have a definition of evolution to base it on. Language isn't concrete, but when a term or phrase is created it is interpreted based on a consensus of language. Evolution is a scientific term and based on the definition of evolution, we can safely say that humans are evolved (just like every other species). There is no living species that isn't evolved.
Are you defining innocent as non-aggressor, no matter what the entity is?
I am defining it as an entity that is harmless to us. I am not against killing anyone we find harming us, including humans. Survival and security are our first priorities of course.
Animals do the same to other animals for the sake of themselves
They do so to feed themselves or to survive. No animal attacks the other out of pleasure or greed. Ever seen how lions and tigers roam around casually with deers and buffalos?
They are tools, not individuals
I usually end discussions with people who call animals 'tools'. I really don't know what to say to people who consider other life forms as material objects.
Most of that has little to do with evolution
Refer to the dictionary for other meanings of 'evolve'. I am NOT talking about biological evolution here.
I am defining it as an entity that is harmless to us.
So an innocent is an entity that is harmless to us? So rocks are innocent. If I kick a rock, am I harming an innocent? And if harming the innocent is wrong, is kicking a rock wrong?
Survival and security are our first priorities of course.
Poaching is for survival. These people do it to either make money or make supplies. Either way, money and supplies are needed for survival. you are judging someone based on how they make a living and not on how they practice ethics.
No animal attacks the other out of pleasure or greed.
Observe apes. Observe most creatures. They attack each other to express dominance. This is for greed (and at times pleasure).
Ever seen how lions and tigers roam around casually with deers and buffalos?
Ever see them hunt them down?
I really don't know what to say to people who consider other life forms as material objects.
Trees and amoebas are life forms. My objective view point is scientific, not materialistic.
I am NOT talking about biological evolution here.
Then be more specific. I looked in Dictionary.com and only saw definitions for biological evolution. Care to share with me where you're getting these other definitions?
Let's not indulge in kiddish arguments. I am sure you know how a rock is different from a cow or a pig.
Poaching is for survival.
Dictionary meaning of survive: to remain alive after the death of someone, the cessation of something, or the occurrence of some event; continue to live.
I am sure people who do not poach survive well. Using your logic, child labour should be legal since it is for the survival of the children's families.
Ever see them hunt them down?
Yeah, they do so to LIVE. Can you live without eating an animal? Yes? No? Do you understand the meaning of 'survival'?
They attack each other to express dominance.
Just like people attack intruders or prospective criminals to save themselves or in milder terms parents slapping their kids, teachers beating up naughty students etc? That isn't the same as killing animals for food, fur, leather and sports.
Trees and amoebas are life forms. My objective view point is scientific, not materialistic.
That doesn't explain why you should call animals 'tools'.
Care to share with me where you're getting these other definitions?
Here's a sentence using the word 'evolve'.
Our culture evolves, sometimes rapidly, and teaching styles with it--but cognitive processes evolve very slowly.
How odd people with their first language as english don't know other meanings of evolve.
I am sure you know how a rock is different from a cow or a pig.
Very true. Just how cows and pigs are different from humans.
to remain alive after the death of someone, the cessation of something, or the occurrence of some event; continue to live.
So really, survival is about a last ditch effort. Animals don't hunt to survive, in this case. They can easily eat the remains of an already dead animal. They don't, though. Predators enjoy the hunt.
child labour should be legal since it is for the survival of the children's families.
If it is, why make it illegal? Why allow people to die for the sake of "child labor laws?"
Clearly poaching and child labor are not the same thing.
Just like people attack intruders or prospective criminals to save themselves or in milder terms parents slapping their kids, teachers beating up naughty students etc?
No, you don't understand how dominance is expressed. It is not like killing an intruder. Dominance is more of a political thing. Protecting life and property are part of it, but most animals wish to express themselves as the alpha male or leader of the pact. This is not for survival. This is for self-interest.
That isn't the same as killing animals for food, fur, leather and sports.
Nothing is the same as anything. But just because we don't do the same thing as animals doesn't make it "wrong."
How odd people with their first language as english don't know other meanings of evolve.
You gave me a sentence and not an actual definition.
Not that different to put them in the category of tools and treat them as objects. Probably you haven't interacted with any animal ever.
They can easily eat the remains of an already dead animal. They don't, though.
Somebody has to kill an animal first for it to be a 'dead animal'. You put dead animals in front of predators and they will never hunt. Have you heard of the movie/book 'Born Free' - a true story of a lioness? She was released in the wild after being raised as a pet and almost died of hunger but didn't hunt. She was given dead animals till she was taught to hunt.
Why allow people to die for the sake of "child labor laws?"
Are you supporting child labour?
but most animals wish to express themselves as the alpha male or leader of the pact.
Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't compare with the cruelty we inflict on animals for food, fur and leather. Do the alpha lions torture the other animals like we do?
You gave me a sentence and not an actual definition.
Doesn't that sentence explain the other meaning of the word 'evolve'?
Not that different to put them in the category of tools and treat them as objects.
That is only an opinion. And you are not the moral authority in the issue of animal ethics.
Probably you haven't interacted with any animal ever.
nonsense, i have a dog.
Somebody has to kill an animal first for it to be a 'dead animal'.
Not always true. Many animals die from accidents or old age. This is why scavengers exist.
Most Predators will REFUSE to eat an already dead animal. They prefer the hunt. it's because their brain conditions them to an awards system. They take pleasure in killing another.
Are you supporting child labour?
Irrelevant, you brought it up. But what YOU basically said is that child labor laws should be illegal despite whether the family dies or not. Unless you don't believe that, then you would support child labor laws as much as I do.
it certainly doesn't compare with the cruelty we inflict on animals for food, fur and leather.
Subjective statement. Some humans can be cruel, others aren't. But animals can be extremely cruel in their methods.
Do the alpha lions torture the other animals like we do?
Keeping others from having sex or subjecting them to remaining in a spot for most of their lives can be torture.
As for primates, feces and rape are common for alpha dominance. I consider that quite cruel.
Doesn't that sentence explain the other meaning of the word 'evolve'?
It doesn't explain how we're not evolved.
But referring to your clarification, we are much more progressed and peaceful. Rape is not an acceptable thing, here.
And you are not the moral authority in the issue of animal ethics.
LOL! I don't even know what to reply to that. Calling animals 'tools' is not to be judged by anyone at all because it is said by Mr ThePyg. :l
nonsense, i have a dog
That doesn't explain anything. There are people who have a dog and then abandon it on the road one fine day.
They take pleasure in killing another.
How confident you are in what you say about the life of animals.
They have to take pleasure in killing another BECAUSE they can NOT survive without hunting. They can't wait for an animal to die from accident or old age and then satisfy their hunger. They will themselves die before that.
But referring to your clarification, we are much more progressed and peaceful.
Again, very subjective if you are comparing it with the animal world. I wonder why you deny the damage mankind has caused to their own kind, to other species and to this planet.
Calling animals 'tools' is not to be judged by anyone at all
I just want reasoning for your judgment.
That doesn't explain anything.
Well, it does, cause you said that I probably have never even interacted with an animal. considering I have a dog, I'd say the contrary.
used to have a cat, too.
How confident you are in what you say about the life of animals.
As confident as you seem to be.
They have to take pleasure in killing another BECAUSE they can NOT survive without hunting.
We use animals for our own progression. It's not a means of survival anymore, but if we had always worried more about nature than our own good, we would still rely on hunting animals for survival.
You're looking at it as if this technology and scientific innovations came to us on accident. Lots of "innocent" animals had to die for the sake of our progression. Our cultural "evolution," if you will.
very subjective if you are comparing it with the animal world.
yeah, which is why i find it idiotic to suggest that we're not evolved when all you have is this going for you.
I wonder why you deny the damage mankind has caused to their own kind, to other species and to this planet.
Because there's no evidence to say that the bad outweighs the good (if there even is any bad that you can prove... at all).
Reasoning? Do animals look 'tools' to you? Have you ever seen how a dog, a cat, a cow, a pig, a goat, a bird, a dolphin, a chimpanzee responds to stimuli, how they portray emotions, how they use their 5 senses to seem so much human even though they can't speak or reason like we do?
As confident as you seem to be.
I have been with animals much more than most out here. I used to work in an animal shelter.
but if we had always worried more about nature than our own good, we would still rely on hunting animals for survival.
How? Mankind discovered agriculture because hunting animals for survival was proving to be very difficult as population grew. Mankind needed a stable source of food and as soon as agriculture was developed, mankind moved from a hunter's life to farming crops and fruits. I don't see how worrying about nature would mean relying on hunting animals.
Lots of "innocent" animals had to die for the sake of our progression.
Must have been. I can't argue what happened in the past. Lots of humans too died for the sake of our progression. By the way, killing animals for food, leather and fur is not any kind of progression.
(if there even is any bad that you can prove... at all)
I haven't really met anyone who says there isn't anything bad done by mankind that can be proved. You are the first one.
No, but through scientific and technological means, we have found them to be very useful tools.
It keeps us from having to harm other humans, whom we know to be of an intellectual match to us. Lower animals are there for our use.
how they portray emotions, how they use their 5 senses to seem so much human even though they can't speak or reason like we do?
Yes, very basic prototypes to the higher animals (us). Great for our need of science.
I have been with animals much more than most out here. I used to work in an animal shelter
So I guess that gives you much knowledge over the motives of animals in the wild.
Mankind discovered agriculture because hunting animals for survival was proving to be very difficult as population grew.
Agriculture has also contributed greatly to diabetes and obesity, which we have killed many animals to try and treat/cure.
killing animals for food, leather and fur is not any kind of progression.
Collection of resources helps men get what they need for w/e reasons. We can't claim that the reasons are always noble or necessary, but we can't do the exact opposite, either.
I haven't really met anyone who says there isn't anything bad done by mankind that can be proved. You are the first one.
poaching is wrong, animals should be used for food and warmth. if a person kills an animal and does not use it for actually needs it should not even be legal.
We must stop poaching. Illegal hunting will cause a dramatic decrease in the animal's population and it'll be put under the endangered list. If it continues, the species all together will become extinct. Besides, the animals are probably very rare and should be left alone.
it could be argued that hunting a species to extinction is wrong, if the species is an important part of its ecology, or that overhunting should not be allowed as it disturb the balance in the nature.
Bones can be used for art and utensils; to create a masterpiece with the bones of wolves, or to create a spoon if you live in a "4th or 5th world country"/live off the land and have no utensils.
What should be regulated is not the betterment people can use other animals for.
Other animals are on this earth for a reason. Obviously humans have evolved by living off the land and using animals for warmth, utensils, ect. Sure we're in the "modern times", however what's the problem with humans being predators towards other animals?
I'm not saying torture the animals and leave their bodies to rot in the sun without eating them or using some or all parts of their bodies and flesh, that's foolish, unnecessary and wasteful.
