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.
Oww, I see what you saying. There not the same because animals are worth more to us. And humans are not worth much to them. I do believe with out animals humans would not lived through out history. But I think animals would not need us I think they would be fine with out us. Just in case that was not what you meant. Yes I think animals are people to. But I would still choose a human over a animal. Uless it a old person or a unborn child.
I've backed up your point with some articles, so Goodmale, consider this argument of his an branch of mine or vice versa, if you are considering asking for proof. The proof is in the links, I've yet to see any of yours.
The first link is unnecessary since it's been well established that humans eat animals.
The second link is full of holes, that I had taken care of in my argument.
Opening the first arrow labeled "Big Cats" under 'Tigers' I saw this statement in favor of my point.
Unlike leopards and lions, man-eating tigers rarely enter human habitations in order to acquire prey. The majority of victims are reportedly in the tiger's territory when the attack takes place"
As it says the humans that were eaten were in the tiger's territory. I said in my argument that, animals will not normally eat humans unless they are either starved, or protecting their territory, among other reasons.
Under 'Lions' I saw this statement in favor of my point:
"Lions typically become man-eaters for the same reasons as tigers: starvation, old age and illness"
Under leopards I read that they only become that way after eating an already dead corpse and aquiring a taste for humans.
I searched "Canids"
Under wolves i found that they become man eaters after living close to humans, and losing their fear of humans. Definitely now a normal case. I also read that they are a very low percentage for their danger potential.
Under dingoes, their is only 3 recorded cases in Australia, and they say that normally dingoes are shy around humans.
Under domestic dogs I found that man eating domestic dogs usually occur when the dog has been mistreated by the owner.
Under coyote I found that not one coyote to human attack has ever even succeeded. It stated that the humans always managed to win just by fighting them off.
I'll stop there, since I think I've more than proven my point and dashed yours in saying Animals do not normally eat humans.
Your point proves my point and the second you should have read. If the animal is hungry. It may not go after a human because they fear they lose the battle. But Big animals would go after humans. Man eating animal are also that way because they took the chance at eating a human. And if there was a pack of wolves and one human. The wolves would totally go after the human. It is hard to prove this because people don't always walk were wolves can see them. example If a hunter was hunting he would be hiding. Then he see wolves but wolves don't see him. Then he takes the shot killing a wolf. And the other wolves run not because there fear the human. Because they fear the gunshot it self.
With the link you gave me, and with the link I gave you first, including lions, bears, and piranhas (animals all known for attacking human sized and greater prey) I proved to you that animals do not normally attack humans. How are you even disputing this right now? The evidence could not have been more clear.
Your example of the wolves is false. I also told you, from the link you gave me, that wolves lived next to humans, but due to natural fear of the humans never attacked, even the humans that were alone at times. When they finally lost that fear, they still only attacked the smallest, and that was when they had no other food source.
You are wrong. Stop talking bullshit. I hate to say things like this because I've seen you when you get defensive, but I've had enough of your bullshit. I have offered you facts that you can not deny, and proof, that you can see clearly by reading any of the links posted. Animals no matter the size do not eat humans normally.
Ok it just go's to show you don't know anything about animals. After you said my wolves example is false because it not. That example go's for all pack animals its a fact. I don't have to prove it to you because you still will not get your wrong.
there are many cases in which a crocodile or a cheeta has eaten peolple but, animals do not like anybody else disturbing them and therefore they attack .. they dont attack because they were hungry
Animals will normally eat anything besides humans. Humans are literally always a last ditch resort. If an animal does kill a human, and it wasn't for food, it was for territory. You've got to work on the logic, and proof in your arguments or no one will ever take you seriously. I still struggle to.
Here we have a video of a man swimming with the world's most dangerous fish, the piranha. You will see, and they will tell you, that because the fish are not starving, their is no reason for them to attack a creature as large or as odd as a human.
Here you have a link telling you what you should do if you encounter a bear. In case you don't open any of these links I'll simply copy and past the most assertive piece of evidence in favor of my argument.
"Remember, most bears prefer to avoid contact with humans, and any bear you do see is probably just as frightened as you are!"
Here you have an explanation as to why the Tsavo Man Eating lions were man eaters. To sum up the article, lion don't generally hunt, they actually prefer to eat the left over carcass left by another hunter, but if they do hunt they prefer larger animals. Larger than them, such as buffalo, gazelle, or dear, and will usually only resort to eating human when their other food sources, are gone, as they were in the Tsavo man eater case.
I've offered proof, and sources of my point, where is yours (I ask for the second time)?
Note: Before you dispute me, re read my first argument I never said animals don't eat humans, I said animals won't eat humans normally.
Let me start over then. I had began by disputing you saying that animals eat humans, by saying that animals eat humans only rarely and in those rare cases due in part to oddities in nature. I then went on to explain that those oddities include, but are not limited to, a starving animal that has no other pray around (meaning normally animals don't eat humans as I said) or a spacial dispute (meaning the animal feels the human is encroaching on it's territory, and will kill it to protect it's area, and obviously will eat it since passing up on food could spell death)
Now that we've back tracked do you see how you just agreed with what I was saying all along, that animals do not normally attack and eat humans, key word here, normally.
With that said, you have obviously run out of arguing points and are just reaching for anything you van to hold on to the idea that you are right. You are wrong. If not in the point of the debate, in at least the point that animals eat humans normally. Admit it, their is nothing else you can say.
Sorry but I been around and study more on animals then you. It is normal that animals would go after a human because there starving and there is no other easy prey around. This would be the same with humans. I don't know why you argue with a person that seen animals attack other animals and humans.
I highly doubt that. You offered wikipedia of all sources as your only key source, and even though i said nothing of your offering of wikipedia I still disproved your point.
You claim to know more about animals, but you are saying literally the wrong things, and trying to dispute facts and sources proving that you are wrong.
You are trying to use a red herring, to distract from the point you are bringing up your (probably false) credentials. How about we leave the credentials out, and just provide some proof to your claims?
How do you think humans would have lived if there are no animals. I mean with out animals we would not live. Humans are not more important. How would we do chemical testing. Or cures. how would plants grow.
With out animals there would be no humans. They must be worth the same or even more. Animals allow food and plants to grow. They help us keep warm. They helped with cures.
First, Humans made themselves to be above the creatures we call animals. Ironically, animals can live without humans but humans can't live without animals. Humans hunt animals for food, clothes, and other things which are all essential to then human's survival. For animals are essential to us, then they have great value.
Second, animals has always been essential to the development of the human race. In the field of medicine, animal testing has provided cures and discoveries that have benefited humans. According to the president of the foundation for Biomedical Research, Frankie Trull, through animal research, there are numerous discoveries that are found through animals, "From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals."
Third, Animal's inability to think rationally does not make them worthless. Animals as companion and pet have benefited humans. Some dogs and miniature horses have served as a guide to blind humans. Animals of different kinds that served as pets have been able to relieve human from stress and have given humans unconditional love. In fact dogs have save thousands of human lives in different kinds of situations.
Animals though they may not understand the human language, deserve respect and care. They have helped humans through different aspects. They are taken for granted. They are worth more than what they are.
First, Humans made themselves to be above the creatures we call animals. Ironically, animals can live without humans but humans can't live without animals. Humans hunt animals for food, clothes, and other things which are all essential to then human's survival. For animals are essential to us, then they have great value.
Second, animals has always been essential to the development of the human race. In the field of medicine, animal testing has provided cures and discoveries that have benefited humans. According to the president of the foundation for Biomedical Research, Frankie Trull, through animal research, there are numerous discoveries that are found through animals, "From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals.
I contest that as it is humans discussing this subject matter, simple rational self interest makes us more important than the animals are. Secondly, your assertion of value doesn't work either; everything we use comes from basic raw materials, but the end product is generally more valued than the raw materials. A pair of shoes is more valuable than the combined value of the leather, plant and/or synthetic materials, metal, and other raw materials that are used to make them. This concept is referred to as a 'value added product,' and it is among the most basic cornerstones of economics- and not just in capitalism.
Third, Animal's inability to think rationally does not make them worthless. Animals as companion and pet have benefited humans. Some dogs and miniature horses have served as a guide to blind humans. Animals of different kinds that served as pets have been able to relieve human from stress and have given humans unconditional love. In fact dogs have save thousands of human lives in different kinds of situations.
Animals though they may not understand the human language, deserve respect and care. They have helped humans through different aspects. They are taken for granted. They are worth more than what they are.
You're right that animals inability to think rationally does not make them worthless. You are also right that they are deserving of respect and care, and that they have helped humans in numerous ways. You are also right in saying that they are truly worth more than the value typically assigned to them. You have not, however, made a case for either the objective or subjective value of an animal being equal to or greater than that of a human.
Read the details of the proposition. The details says that without animal, humans would not live and with out human, animals would not live. As in saying we need animal testing and animals need cures. As in saying we are both worth the same that we can't live with out each other.
Are these statements true? Obviously, which are the main points of my arguments though I don't agree with the proposition that without humans, animals would not live; as you can see in my first argument. Even though humans have the ability to create something from raw materials, there will be no creation without the raw materials. Human development was not without the help of animals. There are many important discoveries that are only possible through the help of animals. Therefore animals have equal worth with humans.
Now, the proposition is broad but it's still fun debating about it.
I suppose it's ironic that I might cite them, given that they would likely support the 'yes' side of this debate, but... the entire vegan movement seems to disagree with the notion that we cannot live without animal products and animal testing. Go figure.
All of the uses we make of animals, and all of the testing we perform on animals hinges on one thing- that human life is more valuable than animal life. Without this as a basic premise, there is no justification for using them as food, using them for clothing, using them as test subjects, etc.
Furthermore, in the absence of animals, our fellow humans could easily replace every function we use animals for- this is an extremely dark idea in my mind, and not one I advocate, but it is there.
Animal products and testing are not necessary for human survival as vegans note. The uses for animals you note are only used under the premise that human life is more valuable than animal life- and in the absence of other animals, our own fellow humans could be used for the same purposes. On the other hand, there isn't a single animal on the planet that can replace what a human can do. Humans can do everything animals can and more, and can be a source for all of the raw materials that we rely on animals for to boot, if one is willing to throw out the rulebook. Ergo, from an objective standpoint, humans are worth more.
You're right that if there were no animals, there would be no humans, as we would not have had a common ancestor to evolve from. But we aren't making a value assessment based on a hypothetical scenario where no animal life evolved on earth. If we were, there would be merit to this point.
We're making a value assessment based on the current state of animals vs the current state of humans. While I'm far from vegan myself, I have to acknowledge that it is entirely possible to live without making use of a single animal product. As such, if there were no animals, humans would still be around, and there would still be life on earth.
Animals are useful, there is no doubt about that, but they are not worth as much or more than humans; they are not worthless by any stretch of the imagination, but they must be valued lower than human life.
This debate is not about the state now. It about the state of history. And plants need animals to grow. humans need cures that come from animals. If anything animals are more important to life. This debate is about who is important to life. Animals gave us so many things that if we did not have we would not live. And even if we did live we would still be stuck way back in the 1500 or even the 500.
Even taking history into account and working from that hypothetical scenario, you still haven't built a case for animal life being equal to or greater than human life in terms of value.
Even if you had, the value of animals in that regard has been expended; if they were to disappear today, we'd still enjoy all the benefits of having had them thus far, but by no means would that threaten our own existence.
Dude if there no animals today it would be every bad. We would have to start eating meat from nuts and things like that and guss were those things come from plants and guss what plants need animals. Animals give all different kinds of things to let plants grow. Animals are more important to life. humans can't go long if animals disappear today. Things will down fall so fast people fighting over the last medicines. People will have to be used for testing. Meat supplys from plants will be so high. It will be impossible to feed everybody. And the list goes on and on.
I'm not suggesting it would be an ideal world in the absence of animals. Animals perform basically three functions that support plants- they assist in pollination and scattering seeds when they feed on the plants, and they provide nutrition for the plants in the form of their droppings and also as they decay after death. The overwhelming majority of plants consumed by humans are products of agriculture, rather than wild plants that are foraged- as such, human farmers and their equipment can and currently do take on the roll of pollinators and seed scattering. Furthermore, nutrition received from animals ultimately comes from plants to begin with; decaying plant matter can provide nutrition for other plants in exactly the same way.
Impossible to feed everybody? I beg to differ. Without a need to maintain wild habitats for animal life, agriculture could expand. Raising livestock to eat, feeding them plants, is in fact extremely inefficient. A field of grain will feed far more people than the total meat yield of the maximum number of cattle that could be supported by the same field. Compared to the current status quo, it would in fact be easier and cheaper to feed everyone on the planet a vegetarian diet.
People are already used for testing- it's called clinical trials. Without animal testing, certainly there would be more risk and more unknowns at play when medications are tested- but it doesn't mean the end of testing, or the end of medicine.
Furthermore, I must reiterate- noting the uses of animals as raw materials (eg food, leather, etc) and for medical testing does not support the idea of animal life being worth the same as human life or more- it is in fact predicated on the fact that animal life is worth less than human life. Were it not, we would be testing animal medications on humans rather than the other way around.
Remember- you are supporting the side that believes animal life is equal to or more important than human life. You've made good arguments for the idea that animals are undervalued, but you have still not come anywhere close to making a case for animals being equal or superior to humans. I don't think it can be done, because as near as I can tell humans are both objectively and subjectively superior to animals- but I'm willing to hear you out if you can put a coherent argument together that actually supports your side.
Remember with out animals your ass wouldn't be here. None of us would be here. Point is people are weak with out animals. Animals has been the reason why we lived so long to evolve.
Still there are medicines that comes straight from animals that people need. There is still fur that we need from sheep. Fish also is a every big supply for food. They also help with medicines. And fish also provide oil. And we wouldn't have even discovered oll with out animals. Because we would not have lived with out animals to even had any discoveries. But discoveries are not even apart of life anyway. In fact life would probably be better with out humans. Knowing that humans can destroy the world with one stupid war or that human make alot of deadly experiments. Humans caused alot more harm then good in are history to life. Life doesn't need smarts or discoveries so humans are point less.
And you are making good arguments too. Your just still not close to proving that humans are the same or more important to life.
You keep jumping back and forth- yes, without animals we wouldn't be here- no evolutionary predecessors. I've already told you I'm not taking hypothetical alternate history into consideration here. Again you list the uses of animals- all of these uses are predicated on the assumption that animal life is worth less than human life, and as such can be sacrificed for our benefit. You're proving the case that animals are worth less than humans for me!
Not that I need to prove that, anyway; it's the default claim for a number of reasons, the least of which is rational self-interest. It is the accepted standard. The claim that an animal is worth the same or more bears the burden of proof in my opinion.
I am sorry but I am not talking about anything else. I am only talking about what is on the debate topic. And what it says "Is a animal worth the same to life as a human" And that is true and animals are probably even more important because life doesn't need smarts or discoveries so humans are point less. Life only needs living things not computers and cars.
It seems that we're at an impasse, and I can't help but think that it's due to us using different criteria for assessing value. Perhaps before we continue, we should establish and agree upon some criteria for valueing life in general? What do you propose?
I know he is talking about. Animal are worth the same If there was no animals there would be no plants. If there are no plants or animals we would die. There has been lots of diseases and other things that if humans did not solve. The animals would have die. There for we are both worth the same to life.
So, you are saying if you eliminate a massive portion of the living beings on the planet some other beings would be affected? That isn't saying much. If humans weren't around, there wouldn't be buildings, computers, satellites, space stations, or plastic.
Life isn't affected by those things? Computers are used to study and generate info to help the planet. Buildings drastically alter the landscape. Plastic is a material that is used everywhere. Living things aren't the only things that affect life.
But with out living things none of that is possible
Your scenario is ridiculous, eliminating giant amounts of life is not a valid test. That stuff can't be built without living things, so those things are less important than animals which are less important than humans.
You have stupid response. You should be so lucky that there are animals or you would not be here. Animals are life to this earth. Animals are the most important to life on earth. If you think your more important then your wrong.
Fish, Some humans, depends on what you talking. If zombies invade it could just be humans. If it was a big rock that it the earth, some humans could survive but not long because there would be nothing to eat.
And no human could have with out animals. Thanks to animals we have lived so long. Animals are the reason why we are here. Animals are most important to life.
Yes, we were both put on this earth and even though many people think that we rule this world, we truly don't. Without animals this earth would not be balanced. We seem to forget that animals were on this earth before us, they had this land before we came in and shoved them out of the way, killing them with no mercy whats so ever. I have an extremely high opinion on animal rights so I enjoy arguing for them : )
I don't believe anyone truly believes this, including to original poster. If we accepted this view then it would mean they have the same right to unemployment benefits, housing, health care etc. On the other hand it would also mean that they would have to accept the same social responsibilities as humans. For example, following laws, social customs etc. But of course they cant because they lack the capacity to under what social responsibilities are.
Value can mean importance or usefulness and this is according to the Longman Dictionary. Now, the proposition does not necessarily imply that animals should have the same rights. Just like the value of food and clothing, they are both valuable but they are not the same.
I may agree with what you say but that only goes to show that both animals and humans have a value in respect to the other. It does not mean they have the same value.
Animals would have the same or more value to life. Life doesn't need cars or computers. Life also doesn't need smarts or discovers. So if anything humans are like the most pointless beings on the earth.
This debate is not about rights but if you want to know then it's because humans just don't let have have more rights. Just because you have more rights doesn't mean you have a better value.
You seriously believe that they should be granted council housing and unemployment benefits if they don't work? If you don't then you don't value them as much as humans.
I do value them more then humans. It doesn't matter if you do are don't value them more it not about that. It about life and what life values the most is living things. Life does value humans because humans are living things but life doesn't value humans anymore or any less then animals. Because even know we are smarter and are able to build computers and cars. Like I said life doesn't value that stuff it only values living things.
Saying that nature values every living thing equally is a nonsense. Do you know how many millions of microorganisms are being killed by your body every day??
I don't get it. If you personally value dogs more than humans why don't you think they should be given equal rights as humans?
I do believe they should be given more rights and I do value dogs more than humans. This is not based on how we value things it's about how life value things and what life value is living things.
Please define what this 'life' thing is that you feel attributes values to different creatures. I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you just trying to be poetic?
You say dogs should have more rights but my question still remains. Why don't you believe dogs should be given EQUAL rights to humans??
It's a lost cause arguing with this guy. I've provided links and sources to prove this guy wrong and all he can do is sit there and say, "but I'm right" basically. His last argument to me was basically waving his alleged knowledge of animals in my face.
People don't understand that dogs are smarter then people thinks. I worked with dogs all my life. Oww here is a smart commit. Dogs understand whats it like being owned.
Your just a person that thinks your worth more. I trade you for a animal in a second. Not because I think animals are worth more because your just king that thinks your better.
Knowing That Humans Are More Important Than Animals Doesn't Make Me A Bad Person. Do Something To My Dogs And I Will Have A Hard Time Holding To My Humans Are Better Concept. Animals Are Important, But Humans Are More Important.
Note: I Am Not Talking About You Personally About My Dogs.
How do you think humans would have lived if there are no animals. I mean with out animals we would not live. Humans are not more important. How would we do chemical testing. Or cures. how would plants grow.
Humans Can Live Off Plants. All Predatory Animals Couldn't Live Without Animals. That Fact That You Have Made A Special Category For Humans Shows They Are More Important.
Not to me. If it was my dog or my mother, I'll have to say that I would miss the dog, but would not feel too bad after replacing it. Maybe in a perfect world I could say yes, but this isn't one.
If the loved one is a human it's still the same argument, but I understand where you are coming from, I'd also save my mother before an innocent bystander.
However you should have already guessed, if it was also just an innocent bystander or a dog, I'd save the innocent bystander first, and the dog second if there was time.
This isn't just my thinking either. The general population tends to rate animals as second class citizens and it's true.
Animals are not allowed to roam freely in the places we create to live. Animals are taken, horded, farmed and use for sustenance. Animal are kept captive and used for entertainment, not to mention disciplined in a way we'd never discipline even a murderer. No rapist has ever had his face rubbed in his victim to show him it was wrong. Nor has a rapist (in modern times) been castrated legally for his crimes, in the U.S.
Worth is not even objective. You could ask if are we (you and myself) are equal in worth. I'll tell you no. If it's my life or your life, I'm choosing my life. What would you choose, honestly?
Still this is not about choosing. This is about we are both worth the same as in saying we are both important. example If I needed you to help me over this wall and you needed me to help you in order to live.
Everything is important to some extent, even spiders. Or I should probably say especial spiders. Your debate asks are animals equal to humans, the answer is a definite no.
Animals are important, humans are important, spiders are important. The worth is in what each individual puts into it, since as I stated before no worth is objective. Now to most humans the worth scale is this, highest to lowest: Human, animal, spider.
You said:
"Still this is not about choosing."
Worth is easily discernible when a choice is needed to be made, that is why I make it about choice.
You also said:
" If I needed you to help me over this wall and you needed me to help you in order to live."
This is not proving that we are worth the same, what it's proving to me more is that I would still value my worth over your worth. We would most likely have an argument, over who would push who over the wall first, since we both value ourself and our desire to be over this wall.
Let's up the ante. Say it's an army, with guns coming after us. Say I help you onto the wall because I believe you will stay atop the wall and help me up. Knowing that once you get to the top of that wall, you will be a target for the armed soldiers with guns, will you value our lives the same and stay to help me, or will you value your own life more than mine, and get off the off the wall now that you are clear to the other side and safe from danger? I actually want an answer to this question, i feel it may clear your head on this idea you have of objective worth. I can already tell you, that if it were I on the wall, and you in need of a hand, at the risk of my life, I'd choose my life. Not for any ill thoughts of you, but for the simple fact that we are not equal in worth to me.
