Return to CreateDebate.comphilosophy • Join this debate community

Philosophy


Debate Info

11
14
yes humans are preternatural no humans aren't preternatural
Debate Score:25
Arguments:20
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes humans are preternatural (11)
 
 no humans aren't preternatural (9)

Debate Creator

ctenophores(15) pic



humans preternatural because of their ability to reason?

in the debate of climate change vs. global warming, and wheather or not we, humans, should do anything about it. many times the affirmative debate is lost simply because their is not enough understanding of the difference between preternatural, and natural.

i myself do not thuroughly understand this argument, however, know that i believe in it, i am looking for some help in shaping my argument, and gaining my views before school starts, my ap teachers realy nail me when i make mistakes.

 

please i am 15, so i appologise ahead of time for my writing mistakes, in syt=ntax gramr, and spelling, but don't call me out on it in the debate, i just want to hear your thoughts!

 


(never started a debate, hope this is a good one!)

yes humans are preternatural

Side Score: 11
VS.

no humans aren't preternatural

Side Score: 14
1 point

Wow nice debate this is deep stuff. I usually shy away from these debates and stick to the simple ones but I will give it a shot.

I believe that humans are preternatural because we have souls. But many of you do not share my religious beliefs so this is tricky. I don't want this to turn into a useless "does god exist?" debate.

Lets say that global warming exists.[another road I don't want to go down, just bare with me] Now I'm not sure as to how you measure reason, but we humans tend to plan ahead. Animals will use some form of reason to tend to their immediate survival. You don't see other mammals planning for the generations that will live one hundred years in the future. Worrying about them.

So I guess you could say that we reason more. I don't think that reason is the only factor here. What about emotion? Do animals love? No, they don't.

Humans are the only ones on the planet that have a divine purpose. The purpose to return to our father in heaven.

Side: yes humans are preternatural
-1 points

Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal with nature than we would not have developed the ability to reason. it is in this ability that we have gained our independance from the norm, and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs.

1. if the rest of nature can not reson to the same extent as humans, than that makes us above nature.

2. the fact that we have been able to become such a destrutive force in such a small amount of time, puts us far above nature.

3. the fact that we are able to fix the problems we create makes us preternatural, for we are capable of resoning, and in extension, responsibility.

4. if one can reason, than one can be responsible.

5. the fact that we are preternatural gives us the right, no, the responsibility to right the wrongs we have been creating, global warming, ocean acidification, etc.

6. if we were truly responsible we would fix our mistakes, since nuthing else can.

7. in nature their are many excepions to rules, but the one rule that creates a preternatural being isn't speed, mind power, or destructive proliferation in itself, but the ability to be responsible for what you have done.

humans can create, and destroy like no other biotic force on the planet, and we are thousands of times more destructive than anyo ther biotic force. humans are preternatural.

if someone could point out the flaws in these arguments, and which ones don't matter, that would be swell! their is so little information about this on the web, excepting twilight references and the like.

i now stand open to cross examination.

Side: yes humans are preternatural
Mahollinder(898) Disputed
3 points

Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal with nature than we would not have developed the ability to reason.

All of the great apes can reason. So can other mammals like Cetaceans.

it is in this ability that we have gained our independance from the norm, and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs.

Wait, what?

if the rest of nature can not reson to the same extent as humans, than that makes us above nature.

Well, it doesn't make us "above nature" any more than birds being able to see the Earth's magnetic field makes them above nature.

I could go on, but realistically, your case is a rather vacuous one.

Side: no humans aren't preternatural
ctenophores(15) Disputed
1 point

all the great apes may be capable of reasoning, but they are not capable of reasoning to the same extent of humans. no animals other than humans can form sentences, or can descide who should live versus who should die in a court.

with our level of reasoning comes responsibility, and with responsibility we have been able to form great cities and proliferate like on other, growing exponentialy in size(not uncommon in nature) and knowledge(i can say with 99.9999999% certainty that humans are onbly organisms known to man to be able to do this).

we have become great, in our ability to be destrouctive (notuncommon in nature) and our ability to fix our mistakes( only humans).

as such we are no more natural than the giant meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs with 1000foot tall walls of fire, or the volcanoes that roasted, and suffocated almost all life, but maybe even more preternatural still in our ability to reverse what we have done.

and in my definition of the term and the placement i have given, the highest power would have to be the earths ability to rebound even after such awesome forces as meteorites, oceanic acidification, and ourselves have ravaged it.

(hoipe this is clearer)

Side: yes humans are preternatural
Bradf0rd(1431) Disputed
1 point

"Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal to nature we would not have developed the ability to reason."

How do you propose 'we' developed the ability? We didn't do it through reason, or logic, so how could an unreasoning being become reasoning without the guidance of natural laws and mechanics?

"... it is in this ability that we have gained our independence from the norm."

Your argument from here down suggests to the reader, that the ability to reason links us to the "norm"... You say that reason leads to responsibility for nature, so if anything we aren't gaining independence, but becoming closer to nature.

Overall though, this statement makes no sense because nothing can gain independence from nature.

"...and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs."

"Phenomena" in general is just a vague word we use to describe something that isn't understood. So much for your reason. Meteors are natural occurrences, like stars and dirt. They aren't above nature because they could kill life... that's like saying a rock, if thrown at someone, was supernatural because it kills things.

"1. if the rest of nature can not reason to the same extent as humans, than that makes us above nature."

Humans reason a certain way, dolphins, chimps, octopi, and even cats are intelligent but they reason differently. This is one reason the I.Q. test isn't taken so seriously, because it's a test to measure human intelligence and reason. It cannot be used to measure the ability of chimps, and a chimps IQ test couldn't be used on humans, we would fail it as bad as a chimp would fail ours.

"2. the fact that we have been able to become such a destrutive force in such a small amount of time, puts us far above nature."

Destruction is simple, stop putting it on a pedestal. It doesn't signify anything, especially because destruction, or the ability to destroy anything comes directly from the laws that govern the universe. It's a mechanical process, not a man made process, and it doesn't take much to do.

"3. the fact that we are able to fix the problems we create makes us preternatural, for we are capable of resoning, and in extension, responsibility."

We cannot fix problems. We can identify what our problems are, or what will be problematic in the future, but that doesn't mean that they are really problems in nature. The globe is warming, but we're causing it, it's bad for our environment and our way of life... but we're not destroying the world. The world is working as well as ever, but we're changing it in ways that threaten our own existence. Every animal knows how to identify problems, and every animal seeks it's own survival before anything.

"4. if one can reason, then one can be responsible."

You need to prove this, you can't just say it and expect people to accept it as truth. As far as I can tell, reason and responsibility aren't directly linked. If anything, morals (which don't need to come about via reason) are at root of responsibility.

"5. the fact that we are preternatural gives us the right, no, the responsibility to right the wrongs we have been creating, global warming, ocean acidification, etc."

This is called self-preservation. It's not above nature to look out for yourself, or even for the well being of others. Animals are known to do this instinctively, not only look our for themselves, but other animals too. Dogs protecting cats, things like that. This isn't a human, unnatural or reasonable thing.

"6. if we were truly responsible we would fix our mistakes, since nothing else can."

We are responsible, but we aren't fixing much... how do you explain this? Even though nothing else will fix it for us and we know we're fucking up, we continue.

"7. in nature their are many exceptions to rules, but the one rule that creates a preternatural being isn't speed, mind power, or destructive proliferation in itself, but the ability to be responsible for what you have done."

I'm not entirely sure of what you mean here. There are other animals that take responsibility for their actions. Maybe not our of ethical duty, but instinctively, some can act responsibly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these arguments need to be reassessed. Not one of your points have a solid, well understood, base. I don't know if anyone else here could really understand what you're trying to get at, and I'm not sure you do either. You need to think about it longer. It's an interesting question but you're not thinking enough outside of (or even inside of) the box. Don't come up with the conclusion that you want to have, let the conclusion reveal itself to you, and keep it until you find a flaw in it on your own.

Also, get familiar with the term "nature" and "natural". It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning all too well and that may be the biggest missing part to your puzzle. Nature doesn't only include the biological world, of plants and animals, even you said meteors are a part of nature, but it's even bigger than meteors and smaller than quarks/gluons etc.

Side: no humans aren't preternatural
ctenophores(15) Disputed
1 point

i see that i did not make myself clear in my first post, i thought that in the first post you are merely supposed to list your points, as vaguely as possible, and then let the negators fall into the trap( at least thats how my debate teacher taught us)

and when i said phenomena, i gave an example as to which kind i was talking about, but besides that.

never mind my initial post, if i could delete it and just use my second one i would.

just use my second one. debate that.

Side: yes humans are preternatural
1 point

The ability to reason, in particular, is not preternatural. I believe nature is the source of reason, it is what makes reason possible, and even if humans are the only living things to reason (which we aren't, even here on earth), we are part of nature, so the ability to reason belongs to nature directly, just as we as people belong to nature.

If you look at it like a file system, the filing cabinet would be Existence, the first folder would be nature, and inside that would be everything else in the universe including laws... if you trace everything in the universe to the highest directory, or the parent which contains all of the attributes of humanity, and the ability to reason at all, that folder would be nature. Reason is natural, human beings are natural, everything that we know of is natural, except the existence of nature itself... though, it does exist so it very well could be natural as well.

Side: no humans aren't preternatural
0 points

English isn't my native-language so i had to look up Preternatural. From what I can see Preternatural is basically a euphemism for supernatural so I would say no. Our reasoning faculties don't make us somehow above or beyond nature just because it hasn't been explained or replicated with AI. Throughout history people have tried to make it so that humans are somehow special and used as their argument all sorts of bullshit claims. It is not that long ago that it was held that only humans dreamed for example.

I don't think us being the pinnacle of evolution in terms of freedom of movement/thought/choice is a good enough argument to call us preternatural/supernatural. If that would be so then by definition the species that had the most evolved reasoning faculties of any given time would be preternatural/supernatural, that is; before humans evolved the dinosaur with the biggest brain would be preternatural/supernatural

Side: no humans aren't preternatural
ctenophores(15) Disputed
1 point

i think you are opporating under the wrong definition of the word. supernatual implies that it is one withbut stronger, like a superchanrged engine, but preternatural and natural is comprable to apples and oranges.

Side: yes humans are preternatural
PungSviti(552) Disputed
1 point

well if natural and preternatural doesnt have a bigger distinction than the difference between apples and oranges then I dont see the use for a whole new word. I think language is natural. Language is found in other species than just humans - and language is the vessel that carries reasoning

Side: no humans aren't preternatural
Bradf0rd(1431) Disputed
1 point

No, my definition of it is basically "unnatural", and because nature is basic and nothing can be unnatural if nature is all that is, unnatural in an order must be supernatural. Which is to say it's an exception in nature.

Supernatural though has a distinct definition and so does preternatural, so what I mean is that they are very similar, but not equivalent.

Side: no humans aren't preternatural