Who would win?

[Jamiie]

Humans with all our weapons and stuff

[Suspective]

Humans for sure

Edited by MattGarner (Assistant General Manager): Please do not create pointless comments in the debates forum.

[GommeInc]

I'm opting for animals and insects, some are immune to whatever we chuck at them, and there are alot of animals out there. Besides, when we get hurt we tend to cry and scream about it, while basic animal instinct means if, say, a snake got attacked it would attack back harder in defence, humans are known to panic if backed into a corner while a fox would destroy whatever has got it run into a corner. Alot of animals carry disease too, so disposing of the bodies would be a difficult one for us, if the animals don't destroy us, the creatures living in their bodies and the bacteria too would certainly see the rest if finished

An interesting idea none the less.

[Wig44.]

I'm opting for animals and insects, some are immune to whatever we chuck at them, and there are alot of animals out there. Besides, when we get hurt we tend to cry and scream about it, while basic animal instinct means if, say, a snake got attacked it would attack back harder in defence, humans are known to panic if backed into a corner while a fox would destroy whatever has got it run into a corner. Alot of animals carry disease too, so disposing of the bodies would be a difficult one for us, if the animals don't destroy us, the creatures living in their bodies and the bacteria too would certainly see the rest if finished

An interesting idea none the less.

I disagree, we can easily wear full body protection.

[Black_Apalachi]

Why do people say 'Humans lose without their guns, artillery nuclear and biological weapons etc etc!!!!!!!!!!'? Because if we apply that to a lion 'Remove his claws and teeth' that seems to make no sense, we must fight the animals with no weapons when they have their weapons. In a 1 on 1 situation, with weapons humans prevail, without weapons it's still not clear cut - we have the advantage of our brains and are able to utilise the environment around us (throw rocks/stones, get to terrain that doesn't suit the animal etc) so it's very very easy to say that humans win. If we don't have our weapons (and animals don't have theirs either) it's easy. If we do have our weapons (and animals have theirs) it becomes easier.

I think the Battle of Isandlwana made it fairly clear that numbers beats weapons.

[Wig44.]

I think the Battle of Isandlwana made it fairly clear that numbers beats weapons.

How are the two even comparable? The difference in 'weaponry' between human and animals is so huge it dwarfs the differences between Zulu and British weaponry in the encounter.

[Ebbymac]

Depending of if we have weapons/protection humans would win.
If we don't, the animals. Their poison, bites, etc.

[GommeInc]

I disagree, we can easily wear full body protection.

Quite alot of animals can penetrate that. Not by fangs (e.g. snakes), teeth (e.g. lions) or claws (e.g. Golden Eagle), but the possibility of constriction, gas or liquid attacks like acid which would eat away at the materials in body armour/protection.

This is assuming that man and animal are both throwing caution and fear to the wind, and attacking with no hessitation.

[Smits]

We would win, insects would die from poison, shoot everything else

[Neversoft]

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that a lot of animals are infact scared of humans, instantly giving us the upper hand. They would flee, they wouldn't attack. Is everyone also forgetting that animals are afraid of fire? Humans don't need weapons, all we need is a fire torch to dominate all animal life. If we burn down all of the forests that would kill a significant number of animals and then the rest would have no where to hide. Humans have used fire to protect themselves from animals for thousands of years. Animals got nothin' on fire!