The human race seriously needs to die out.

Humanity clearly does not need to die out....I will start by refuting my opponent's arguments which will include my own arguments..."The human race has been pillaging and raping the world for its natural resources and native inhabitants (animals) for thousands pf years and i dont see and end to it soon."Although my opponent believes this, he or she did not take the idea of "survival of the fittest" into consideration. Survival of the fittest by definition is "the continued existence of organisms that are best adapted to their environment, with the extinction of others, as a concept in the Darwinian theory of evolution." [1] As we can agree, this is clearly an act of nature, and therefore is meant to occur. Through thousands of years, animals and plants have evolved in order to keep their species alive and active. The map below shows the distance that the homo erectus took. After originating from the dry desserts of Africa, the homo erectus needed to expand in order to let the species flourish. To do this, they went to various parts of the world, all having their advantages and disadvantages. Over time, man began to have a drastic increase in brain size, to cope with all of the events occurring in the Neolithic revolution. While getting to these places, mostly consisting of humid and warm temperatures of around 23.5 deg. N, there was a population increase. In order to feed these new generations, man had to find any ways possible. In order to do this, as the quote in (1) states, organisms need to adapt to their environment. As a result of this, man began to alter the environment to fit their own needs. They began farming and domesticating animals to help them farm. Hundreds of thousands of years later, the Roman empire was very prosperous due to their ability to extract resources such as gold and water, using their engineering superiority to their advantage, having a constant and stable water source, which would be able to provide the entire empire with water. "The Romans constructed numerous aqueducts to bring water from distant sources into their cities and towns, supplying public baths, latrines, fountains and private households. Waste water was removed by complex sewage systems and released into nearby bodies of water, keeping the towns clean and free from effluent. Aqueducts also provided water for mining operations, milling, farms and gardens." [3] Once again, humanity was altering their environment in order to fit their needs. Nowadays, people follow these same rules of humanity, by drilling for resources to help this population increase thrive.. When my opponent states that humanity is extracting resources, it is to help humanity thrive....."The humans are too smart to be wiped out, theyll figure a way to make it, "As stated in the last refutation, survival of the fittest is an act of nature and should not be altered with. ""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory" [4] My opponent believes that we should alter what nature has planned, to fit his or her wants. The whole idea of survival of the fittest is that a species should adapt to survive any obstacle, which as my opponent states "theyll figure a way to make it,"....."Someone needs to do something..."My opponent does not show why or even how he or she is planning on making the human race die out. Any tasks that are pursued have a great chance of endangering other species and the environment as a whole. ...."Humans are torturing and mutilating their own kind and other species for what?"My opponent doesn't state how "torturing and mutilating...other species" is morally wrong. Is it morally wrong for a, for instance, a bear to eat a fish? It is all by nature's plans of the system of predator and prey. Humans are by nature a predator, and have adapted to being one after millions of years (stated in first refutation)...."... I think ill kill some innocents or skin an animal alive maybe.""Survival of the fittest states that a species must do any action in order to survive. In this case the person my opponent is referring to killing the animal because of its potential threat to him or her, or because this person needed money to survive, and must kill the certain type of animal for its skin to be sold. For when you stated "kill some innocents," I am inferring that by innocent you mean people. With that said, by that you would be helping your problem of helping the human race die out.....I appreciate that my opponent took the time to post his arguments, and hope he will continue to do so next round......[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com....[2] http://blackhistoryfactorfiction.com....[3] http://en.wikipedia.org....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...