Instigator / Pro
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#4411

Thirst is to drink:Hunger is to consume: Libido is to consummate

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

TheApprentice
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
5
debates
70.0%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Anyone that thinks those individual analogies are not analogies across the board, I'd like to talk to you.

It maybe without controversy but I like to test the waters.

In case no one sees the controversy, I will make the following statement.

I'm pretty much indeed saying each of these three elements do and always function as survival drives.

Questions on the topic, leave a comment.

Round 1
Pro
#1
We being people as we are we drink because we thirst. 
We consume food because we hunger.

We consummate because of a libido.

All of these drives are linked to a biological need of living. In living we grow and continue to move as organic mobile creatures.

Is this straightforward enough?
Are there any questions?
Con
#2
Hunger is to consume? Thirst is to drink? Libido is to consummate? I would beg to differ. Make note, I agree that in the past, these biological drives kept us alive. I’d even concede that, to this day, these primeval instincts help to keep us living. That said, the author of this debate has overstepped the boundaries of this statement. They have gone on to say that, “I'm pretty much indeed saying each of these three elements do and always function as survival drives.” Categorically untrue.
The underlying spark that lights up your hunger, that arouses you, that makes you thirsty, it’s not some preprogrammed, godly survival instinct. Instead, the answer is much more simple. It’s hormones. And hormones, they can be wrong too.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Ok hormones that do what for what?

What is the point of hormones?

The ghrelin hormone controls hunger , is that correct?

It stimulates hunger signals for a consumption of food.

Why ? For the functionality of acquiring nutrition, some sort of fuel like energy for our organic cells that function as mobile living cells .

We as living mobile creatures have a collection of these mobile living cells.

These hormones exist for some sort of functionality to us. I think you're saying we don't have anything solely and always that exists to serve as biological survival maintenance functionality.

If you take that position, it's like saying we have hormones for the sake of just having them. Nothing in the body is just there to go in circles neither is the debate to do such a thing.

Everything in our bodies serves some sort to some extent a job to maintain us. Why? That's what living beings are. We're made up of organic living mechanisms.

We are alive. Everything we do is for that fact. It's why we're mobile and why everything within us is moving and always moving. Whether on a macro or micro level, you can take a microscopic observation if you're not convinced of that.
I'd suggest just looking on the surface for starters empirically that will show you many signs, many indications telling a story about what's going on at a deeper level within and or at the building blocks of life , the human cell .

So where can we go from here?

Break down, elaborate further what you mean by "it's hormones". Everything has a root or basis for something. 

I'm arguing that "something" just takes you right back to what I've explained in my position.

I yield.

Con
#4
Interesting rebuttal. I’ll agree my last point was weak and unreliable. I did not fully unearth the point I was trying to reach. That is, sometimes our instincts are wrong. We can have a hormonal imbalance, we can be depressed, any number of factors can lead to humans eating, drinking, or having intercourse that isn’t strictly for survival purposes. I will agree, as well, that putting the focus of debate on “always” would be a waste of our time. That said, though, I do wonder how you would apply your statement to homosexuals who engage in intercourse which has no reproductive value?
Round 3
Pro
#5
"We can have a hormonal imbalance, we can be depressed, any number of factors can lead to humans eating, drinking, or having intercourse that isn’t strictly for survival purposes."

Wouldn't a "hormonal imbalance "mean a dysfunction of what those hormones are for ?

See the ghrelin hormone is for what it's for. When there's a dysfunction of this indicator to maintain our organic composition, we may not respond to hunger or not respond properly. But it nevertheless is a biological maintenance function.

Like with a car that has a faulty mechanism. That mechanism could not work or just work improperly. I think you're trying to address what causes things or the different types of causes there are for things . Inside of those different scenarios, people have different things going in their lives that indicate why THEY are doing certain things.

It's that THEY part. I want to distinguish and separate here what people decide to do as a cause and what things independent from people have as causes in of those things.

For example you mentioned hormones. The hormone has a cause or function in and of itself regardless of a person's choice or cause.

A person can't decide what the function of a hormone is. It's the hormone that places control.

Good thing too because I do believe if it was left up to us, we'd been dead.

If you ever heard that expression "I'd lose my head of it wasn't attached", you may understood it as our responsibilities, our choices, our special circumstances compared to how our bodies are established, there's no equivalency.

There are tons of things our bodies do without conscious thought, so elaborate, so intricate, it's best to leave it to the body.

So I want to establish I'm coming from that standpoint and not going by anything outside of that.

" I do wonder how you would apply your statement to homosexuals who engage in intercourse which has no reproductive value?"

Well that is the point that many people will come to reading a topic like this.

From my standpoint, from the standpoint of the body, I don't know of any hormone or drive within that uses homosexuality as a survival function.

What you're wondering is like the million dollar wonder and by what you brought about the different things and factors that can cause or be the reason why we do certain things would make you wonder.

By bringing up the things you did, many others will want to broach those things as well in order to get away from just looking at these functions physiologically in proper health.

So just looking at our functions on their own , there's none that I know of that says this function exists for the aid of sustaining organic life in the characterization of homosexuality. Quite clearly and obviously it can be characterized in heterosexuality.

I mean one has it's place always such as a case when there is only two  or a small amount of people on the planet. I don't see same sex activity. It would be out of place.

Some may argue that homosexuality has a proper biological function as natural birth control. But then the question is, what does it have to do with the sustaining factors that are analogous to the topic?

Con
#6
“Wouldn't a "hormonal imbalance "mean a dysfunction of what those hormones are for ?”
You bring up an interesting thought, and an even better counter point. When I first mentioned hormones, I was partially afraid that you would notice the fallacy I unwittingly revealed. The concept of “programming” which drives us, which I think is a major foundation of your stance. But, in that weakness of my own stance, of which I admitted by first bringing up the word “imbalance”, I think there is a larger issue at hand.
I’ll begin with my second point, and please do tell me if I am incorrectly straw-manning your argument.
Point 2 - Your stance is that our bodies are similar, in a way, to computers. We have three main drives, implanted in our very instincts, that contribute to the advance of our race. My original point, one I believe you have sufficiently dismantled, was that we sometimes have the equivalent to a virus, caused by external factors, that interfere with our original capabilities. Those, we both agree, are exceptions to the norm. Rather than my original point of saying the computer (human body) can be infected, I will now say that it is obsolete. Our primal drives no longer promise longevity.
Evidence
* The world has changed, and we, as adaptable creatures, have too. We now live in a society of law and order, walls and roads, as opposed to nomadic tribal communities. I believe both of us, based on our prior writings, subscribe to the theory of natural selection and evolution, and so let me begin with that. If we have three drives that contribute to our continued survival, that is: thirst, hunger, and lust, do we not also have fight or flight? Again, I am of the belief that you would agree with those instincts, just as you advocate for the previous three mentioned by both of us. That said, like lust, hunger, and thirst, fight or flight  instincts have changed greatly. We can’t fight our boss, or run away from the job and never come back, even though their power presents a threat to us. Instead, we have to ignore one of our most basic instincts in response to threats, and bear the discomfort and suffering for future good. When we were wearing pelts, we would either kill the threat or leave the land. I will admit, that doesn’t have direct bearing on our topic at hand, but it branches to it, and shows the most prevalent example of instincts giving way to modern thinking. Instead of letting our base desires control us to continue our survival, like your response indicates, we need to use our brains and deeper levels of  thinking to advance our way past modern obstacles.
* Food quality. I will begin this one by saying that I believe health and survival are intricately linked. If we want to survive as long as we can, we have to be healthy.  “The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US adults is approximately 280000 based on HRs from all subjects” (Allison et al, 1999). With that in mind, simply eating/satisfying your hunger in the 21st century, is a great way to get in the grave early. I predict a counter point to this will be that we can eat healthy, live long, and satisfy our primal drive, but I will contest that. I’m not trying to argue that we don’t need to eat, drink, or consummate to continue the human race’s survival, I’m merely stating that satisfying those desires across the board, is not to our species benefit. You have said that “I'm pretty much indeed saying each of these three elements do and always function as survival drives.” I am arguing that they only function as survival drives when driven by sound, informed thinking. “The fundamental concern as we look to reform health in America is the known reality that most chronic diseases that afflict Americans are predominantly lifestyle induced; and the belief is that the vast majority of heart attacks and strokes could be prevented if people were willing to adopt healthy lifestyle behaviors” , additionally, “over the past 50 years, the health of Americans has gotten worse, and now 71% of Americans are overweight or obese—not 66%, which was reported 5 years ago” (Fuhrman, 2018). These people are subscribers to your line of thinking. They are satisfying their hunger, conveniently, while sacrificing their health/continued survival.

When you first stated the debate’s theme, I thought Tarzan. He seems to embody what you’re trying to argue for. He didn’t really need anything to survive but food and water, and when he met Jane, his lineage would be conceived and survive by consummating and continuing these practices. They don’t need clothes, or education, to survive, but that’s in the jungle. In civilized countries, Tarzan would die faster than you could say “OOOORRRRRAAAA” as you swing on vines.

Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA. 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1530-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.16.1530. PMID: 10546692. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10546692/
Fuhrman, J. (2018). The hidden dangers of fast and processed food. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6146358/


Round 4
Pro
#7
You stated a bunch of things,  layers upon layers.  I could get lost trying to find your bottom line 

I'm quoting this to get to the epicenter and simplify.

" I am arguing that they only function as survival drives when driven by sound, informed thinking."

As far as sound goes, you're talking about a sense. Hearing sustains are living. We can just look at everyday empirical life. This is the evidence all around us. Hearing keeps us alert. Helps us do other things to be constructive. Then there's that part of the inner ear that aids our physical balance.Then touch or tactile, another sense to help us live . Being able to feel hot or cold is imperative to sustaining ourselves. These are other aspects to our survival.

Hunger does not come by thinking. I already mentioned the name of the hormone. People can think about food. A person can think "I want that piece of cake." Then they recall the taste and the memory puts a virtual taste in their mouth. That isn't hunger triggered by a hormone or neurological signal. The difference is an elected craving  for pleasure for taste while the body is already currently nourished.

This is a segue to lust. The lust over food is from the sight. The lust over people like food is the sight and a thought of pleasure arises. My natural sexual attraction comes not by thought. It's my testosterone and I don't think about it for it to fuel and work the drive. I don't think my arousal into existence.

These are natural drives just as breathing rigorously after high exertion. Then there is perspiration. There are many things that sustain us besides what is mentioned in the topic.

I don't see where you touched on homosexuality after my response to what you were wondering.
I guess there's nothing to it. We can see it has no place.

All anybody can say is so what, who cares?

Anybody doesn't necessarily have to care . The truth of our bodies is what it is .

You can point to anything in our bodies. It has a function to grant us life.

Now someone can argue, what about pleasure itself and the release of chemicals in the brain?

Isn't what is pleasurable to us a reward?

Does that in and of itself add to our lifespan somehow?

Feeling good can relax us, take way the tension and stress, ok. 

I know of drugs that can accomplish this. The conflict comes in where the cons outweigh the pros. When there is an abuse or misuse, there is a drawback or diminishing for every receipt of delight. That pleasure is often short lasting too. So the tradeoff is crucial. Just sole pleasure, we have to be careful just on that broad avenue.
Con
#8
My last argument was... in-depth, I'll agree.  Though that's not to say the points didn't connect. That said, you're correct in your perspective of the crux of my words. But only slightly. In this round, I'm going to attempt to show you my perspective, why your rebuttal doesn't work, and also why my argument makes sense, in a clearer format than previously.
1. "I am arguing that they only function as survival drives when driven by sound, informed thinking."
Technically, you're right in that my focus was on the subject of the quote above, but there was a slight misunderstanding on your part. You said, "as far as sound goes, you're talking about a sense," in the context of summarizing my statement. On the contrary, that is exactly what I'm arguing against. The sound that was mentioned in my argument is not an innate sense, but a learned way of rational thinking, of weighing the pros and cons. And you're right that hunger does not come from thinking, though I never said it did. Hunger is a natural, biological drive. It's a basic, unconscious, uncontrolled, feedback mechanism in the organism that is the human body. I won't argue that, and fortunately, I don't have to.
2. "I'm pretty much indeed saying each of these three elements do and always function as survival drives."
The aforementioned quote comes from your description of this debate, and I'll admit that you've been pretty consistent with your arguments. The problem I see is that they seem to equate survival drives as the end all be all to life and its continuation. You're hungry, eat. You're thirsty, drink. You're aroused, engage in intercourse to procreate. We have agreed there are certain anomalies, like the homosexual and hormonally unbalanced examples, which is why I didn't see any use in continuing to further involve them in this discussion. We agreed not to use these anomalies to dictate the majority of your statements validity. That said, there are wider exceptions to this rule. And I know I agreed to not put focus of the debate on the use of "always", but the exceptions I specifically refer to are going to be examples that apply to a significant amount of people, so I think this is pertinent to include.
  • Example #1 - Shades of green.
The shades of green example I use refers to the process by which our evolutionary ancestors, who lived in agricultural societies, evolved to be able to see more shades of green, so as to know whether some plants were more valuable than others, whether that be because of inedibility or degrees of maturation (Hunt, 2023). If we were to use your analogy, just eating anything would be enough to survive. Or you could also argue that just eating anything that has a more attractive shade of green would be enough to survive. But then you have to ask, how would they determine what shade of green is better to have, or what plant is poisonous or nutritious? It's definitely not just hunger, somehow telling them which fruit or vegetable is better. So, then you come to the answer that I have: they have to experiment, they have to use evidence, and they just have to think, with rational thought backing that sense of hunger. Even if we were to somehow dismiss the necessity of rational thought for this example, it's still an evolutionary fact that humans evolved to filter out good food vs bad food, so in the equation of hunger being solved, it's not just food + hunger = continued life. There's something missing there. I'm saying that something is rational thought, which your analogies don't include, and are therefore open to be criticized.
  • Example #2 - Babies
Cheap shot, I acknowledge, but you didn't respond to my Tarzan example. I worked hard on that; you know. Anyway, the point of this is an extreme, but extremes reveal the flaws in things. Shove a submarine into the depths of the ocean, you'll find where the hole is really quick. For your argument, I'll just shove a baby in there. Babies, same biological drives, lack the ability to reason on their own, and information to distinguish between harm and good. They have hunger, they put a Lego block in their mouth. That is a quick road to heaven, in my opinion. But your argument says hunger being satisfied is good enough. It's not.

In your next round, would you mind including a definition to what you mean by "survival drive"? I know it's rather late in the debate, but it might be helpful to either of our points to expand on. Also, I didn't know the purpose of your inclusion of pleasures and the use of drugs in the human body. Was it to defend that the anomalies of the population also depend on the three survival drives, even if drugs have to be used as a substitute? But I'm still lost on the pleasure point.




Round 5
Pro
#9
If I'm not responding to certain things you've said it's because I don't see the correlation between them and the topic.

Bringing it back to center and the topic. Hunger to consumption, thirst to drink and libido to consummate.
Is all this analogous?

My position is that they are. If you say they're not , why not ?

A survival drive is a controlling force to maintain or preserve that whatever it is .

Something that's a controlling force over a car is what we call the driver.

A sex drive is a type of controlling force responsible for my vessel which is you can say a vehicle like a car to steer me into engaging in sexual relations or function with another to consummate.

Same way with food. I'm driven or being controlled and prompted, motivated to consume or eat for nutrition.

Senses as broached before help along. For instance, the smell of food. A natural functioning sense wired to stimulate the hunger.  The smell of a person is analogous. Now a person isn't food but is often characterized as being delicious .

That's how you can say all these functions are analogous. You can simply see the commonality without getting super technical, drawing out different ideas , thought experiments or how we rationalize.

Not even the point of how we rationalize with these functions. I'm going to paraphrase instead of going back to get the exact quote. You conveyed something along the lines of a drive functioning only as survival for us by thinking. 

That's not correct at all. We exist as newborns trying to maintain ourselves all without thought. We cry , we burp as our communication for drives innate in us to help sustain us. If we had more rounds I can go into that . These are natural drives in us like breathing and heart beating. These are things that function in and of themselves for an organism configured to live without thought.

Con
#10
I’ve pretty much utilized the best examples in my arsenal. I’ve shifted angles multiple times to indicate the key weakness I see in the Pro’s argument. I agree that we, as humans, hunger, thirst, and lust. These drives are indeed prompted without thought. Without thought, though, these drives aren’t solved to the level of continued survival, which this debate was focused on. In simple organisms, like plants, such an argument would be true, nonetheless we are humans, and our problems are more complex. Finally, yes, a baby can feel hunger, but no, it can’t solve its biological drive without thought. That’s where a parent, with an informed intelligence, steps in.
That’s as simple as I can end things.