Human extinction can not be caused by humans

Thank you for your quick response. -Pro Points of Contention- 1. Space expansionism as a safety net. This argument is largely hypothetical. While it is true that recently the United States allowed for more serious commercial competition in space affair, it in no way means that we are close to colonization, merely that we are closer. The opponent provides no evidence suggesting that a transport capsule (SpaceX Dragon capsule) that takes goods from Earth to the ISS in any way insinuates that we are furthering the efforts of space colonization. The closest place for actual space "colonization" would likely be Mars or the moon. Currently, there is not even a moon base and we have never touched down on Mars. Space colonization will likely happen, but it is far off into our future, allowing for plenty of time for humans to destroy themselves. 2. Humans are strong. This argument is based off of the assumption that no matter what happens, somebody will be able to survive it. This claim is ludicrous. Humans are able to adapt to some diseases, but there are still others that we seem to be unable to adapt to (HIV/AIDS). If humans were to make a biological weapon in the form of disease, it would likely be engineered to specifically destroy humans, negating any "adaptation" skills they may have. While I'm sure it's "possible" that a some human somewhere survives a devastating virus, global nuclear war, human-caused environmental disaster, etc., the probability of such a thing happening is so low that it should not be considered a viable argument. 3. Nuclear war wouldn't cause 100% human extinction. This argument claims that there aren't enough nuclear bombs in the world to kill all humans. Let's break this argument down. First, it's stated that the Earth is about 500 million km^2 and the currents Tsar bombs can only cover about 14% of the planet. However, considering that only about 30% of the Earth is actual land, the Tsar bombs could cover about half of Earth's landmass. If the humans launching the weapons were intelligent, and they likely would be, they could easily destroy all major production areas of manufactured goods and agricultural goods. This would leave the other 50% of the Earth without any food or supplies, a situation that would inevitable kill off most, and leave the few remaining sick. What my opponent failed to mention was the issue of nuclear fallout. Fallout is the irradiated dirt that is launched off of the ground and into the air and atmosphere after the initial blast. In fact, the nuclear bomb isn't dangerous because of the blast, but more so for the fallout, which is far more dangerous. The dirt will be flung miles from the blast area. This fallout could easily cover the remaining 50% of the Earth, should the bombs be launched evenly. Realistically, every Tsar bomb wouldn't be launched in a nuclear attack, but the fallout that enters the atmosphere will causes radiation to spread absolutely everywhere. It will also cause what's called a "nuclear winter" which would likely cause the destruction of all humans and most life on the planet. It should also be noted here that humans can cause their extinctions in many ways other than nuclear war, so this argument proves little in the grand scheme of things. -Con Arguments- Here I'll present my points of contention that will advocate the claim that humans can cause their own extinction. 1. A virus could possibly destroy all life. There are currently cases of diseases that we simply are unable to stop. The most notable disease that comes to mind is HIV/AIDS. Luckily, HIV/AIDS is only spread from fluid to fluid contact, making it easily avoidable for people who don't already have it. It is quite possible, however, that a disease could arise that has the properties of HIV/AIDS except that it is airborne and waterborne. Such a disease would almost certainly cause a death toll including all humans on the planet. With no means of stopping or avoiding it, humans would easily succumb to it. As was previously mentioned, even if some humans survived, other environmental factors would likely take them. 2. Contingency Suicide Argument This argument doesn't refer to any specific possible event, but approaches the resolution from a philosophical point of view. My goal as Con is to prove that humans can possible cause their extinction. This means that if I merely demonstrate that it is possible that humans cause their own extinction, I will win the debate. Realize that all humans that are not capable of committing suicide rely upon those who can commit suicide. It is possible that, for whatever reason, all those who can decide to kill themselves. Those who are physically unable will die off due to their inability to support themselves. This would cause human extinction. While this isn't something that will likely happen, it is certainly possible. Because it is possible, I have won the debate. 3. Humans could easily burn up their resources. We are seeing that our resources are running out. It is inevitable that humans will consume all of their resources, and certainly a resource that is imperative to our survival. When a resource like this runs out, we will die off. It will be like an animal without food, in a place where no food can be found. -Summary- The Pro was unable to produce an argument showing that humans cannot cause their own extinction. Con's arguments show that it is possible for humans to cause their own extinction, which is enough to satisfy the resolution and win today's debate.