Respect for Life

nature is true beauty, and that man is indeed not a part of nature (recall my beehive analogy)Now I will go into rebuttals: My opponent says : "-That I give an inferior position to the creations of man:I have to clarify this point, and firmly protest over this interpretation of my argument. I do not give second place to men. I believe that artificial things are as good as natural things, and that is a basic premise for me to say we shouldn't return to the jungles. My issue is really this: While artificial is good, one must not get so engrossed in it that one forgets what it is based on. Build houses and multistory buildings, but do not forget that they rest on the earth. A major preoccupation with artificial things is a problem as it disconnects us from nature, and results in a feeling that natural is inferior to artificial, and this leads sometimes to us not fully appreciating the necessity of nature. " I don't know what you saw of your argument, but I saw a clear segregation of man and nonman (man into unnatural/artificial and nonman into natural/beautiful - 'true beauty of nature. .. '). You can deny that you've done this, but it doesn't change the fact that you actually did, whether or not it was intentional. What makes the structures of man artificial? Here you've ignored my argument: "is man not a part of nature? " Man is just like any other organism with its evolutionarily developed facets and traits. I therefore contend that anything man creates is just as natural as the things created by other living organisms. This response, while attempting to reestablish my opponent's contention to the reader, does not properly respond to number three on the list. Since my opponent a) did not establish that nature is true beauty b) man is not a part of nature (for if it is, and I argue that it is, then everything it does must be natural) My opponent then addresses number 1 on my first objection (and here I will paraphrase to save you time):-Respect towards nature is irrelevant. In his response, my opponent attempted to establish that, through respect for life, humanity is more able to motion toward conservation. While this argument is very likely true, it doesn't actually establish objective relevance, an obligatory must, in harboring this respect. Think of it this way: Let us say that each and every one of the Earth's inhabitants has already worked together to implement as many measures of conservation as possible. In this environment, is respect necessary? With conservation already in place, respect, the means through which we attempt to achieve the goal of conservation, is no longer necessary. Through this example alone, I'm sure even my opponent must agree that, in reality, respect and conservation hold no objective relevance. The third paragraph in my opponent's realm seeks to establish the significance of life. And here I will quote my opponent's main defenses:1. "one who believes nothing is important would not respond to my challenge. " 2. "Life is important, to find the purpose of life, if not for anything" 3. "Those who truly believe life isn't important wouldn't care anyways"I cannot ignore the fact that these three points are really just floating statements with no supporting logical or objective explanations. I would like to ask my opponent to prove each and every point beyond reasonable doubt through either likely evidence or logical construction. Number 2 in this line of assertions states that life is important, to find the purpose of life, if not for anything. The logic basically works thus:-If life is not important for anythingthen-life is important to find the purpose of life. While making this assertion, my opponent fails to consider the fact that 'anything' reaches to all things&ideas. The act of finding the purpose of life conforms to anything. This assertion has therefore been nulled by itself. Number 1 and 3 are simply irrelevant. Importance and necessity are completely different entities. Attempting to establish the importance of life is meaningless in the context of this debate. I reiterate the arguement that life is not necessary, therefore, respect for it is not something we must have. Once again, for the PRO side to secure victory, it must establish the following:1. conservation and respect are objectively relevant 2. life is necessary3. nature is true beauty4. man is indeed not a part of nature (recall my beehive analogy)*note - I've separated #3 into two parts so that my opponent does not accidently ignore these points in his rebuttal. On to PRO!