Humans main reason for existence is to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity.

Thanks, Pro, for the debate. Pro's Arguments: 1. If one species has to be destroyed, it won't be us (humans). 2. Humanity doesn't ask us to be happy, but brilliant. 3. Wars and famine exist to weed out the weak. 4. Humanity needs a strong leader who will change the world. .: Winning and survival are everything. First and foremost, you'll notice that none of these contentions support the resolution. Rebuttal: 1. Pro contends that out of all of earth's species, humans would not be the ones to be destroyed in the future. However, that is not necessarily true. One scenario is that human evolution slows down, which many academics feel is the case - at least in the sense of complex brain genes [1] and some mutation or change happens within the next billion-trillion years that speeds up the evolution of another species excessively. In other words, although it's unlikely, the world may experience some sort of phenomenon that leads another species to surpass human beings. In that case, humanity may or may not be destroyed. If you think that's too unlikely to be considered, think of it being possible in this more likely scneario: some sort of disease or natural disaster takes place that humanity can't withstand. Another species may or may not be able to survive and evolve. In that case, Pro's contention is false. 2. In saying that humanity doesn't ask us to be happy but brilliant, it seems as if Pro is asserting that he's God or an equivalent who knows the answer to the eternal question: Why are we here? Indeed, even if the answer is "to perpetuate" as would be Pro's reply, there really s no answer to the "But why?" that follows. Moreover, I would argue that there are a lot of people whose purpose in life is not to be brilliant. For instance, what about the existentialists who believe that we choose our own purpose or that we define our own meaning? Either way, this point fails. 3. I disagree that wars and famines exist to weed out the weak. Things like famine could be an accident - not for a specific purpose. A lot of times, humanity cannot control the forces of nature that make certain things exist, like famine. Or, certain things may be suited to survive in particular scenarios, and it might not be the brilliant. For instance, a cactus would be more likely to survive than I would in a situation where there was no water. Does that make the cactus smarter than I? No. Further, wars don't exist to weed out the weak. Wars are the result of various things; greed, terror, fear, some think divine intervention, etc. A lot of times it is the brilliant who die. Not only the better survive. 4. What does having a strong leader have to do with this, really? Pro asserts that we need a Julius Ceaser or even Lenin to rule over and preside; however, like his other contentions, this really doesn't explain why the survival of humanity is the reason for existence. Plus, as Pro himself has admitted, some leaders are evil and weak and could actually lead to humanity's demise. .: Winning and Survival are Everything So how does Pro reach this conclusion? I've disputed all of his contentions. My arguments are as follows: 1. The perpetuation of mankind is not an ethical necessity. 2. The perpetuation of mankind is not a moral necessity. 3. The perpetuation of mankind is not a teleological necessity. .: Humans main reason for existence is not to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity. One cannot argue that humanity must perpetuate for ethical reasons. Whether something was ethical or not would only matter to us if humans existed in the first place. So, this is a circular argument. Further, morality implies that there are values to uphold (or that can be violated). Once again, without humanity existing in the first place, no values would exist to be either upheld or violated. So again, this is another circular argument. "The meaning we impute to our lives comes from our own values and feelings, and there's no reason to bemoan the fact that either our lives or the life of our species may or may not continue after a certain point" [2]. In short, Pro has not explained WHY the main reason for human existence is to perpetuate the survival of humanity. Plus, Pro hasn't proven that this necessarily WILL be the case via science. On the contrary, I've proven that while life may indeed be the ultimate value (the objectivist metaphysical belief, which I agree with), the fact remains that there's no value which inherently states that the survival of all of humanity is the ultimate value and why, or explains how this is feasible. I agree that we can and maybe should try; however, acknowledge that this may or may not be possible, and even if something happens that destroys humanity, we are still "at the top of the food chain" in terms of evolution and whatnot. And with that said, I'll turn the argument back over to Pro. [1] http://www.encyclopedia.com... [2] http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com...