The Instigator
Dr.Whatif
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

A New Way

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 65839
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Dr.Whatif

Pro

I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely, nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs. If we designed a web like politic system with no super power, the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient, productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us, tell me you don't want to see your fellow man run. Now please prove me wrong, poke holes that is the whole point of this idea, so we can put down the sticks we bludgent eachother with like chimps an help eachother understand. Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want. to summarize i want you to tell me why this wont work because if you cant theres a chance it can. If it can i want my people to have the best shot at this life as a species and individually that the laws of our universe will allow.
WillRiley

Con

Now, in a perfect world, this would work. However, this is not a perfect world. People are not always good. I will assess your points in the order that they are presented:
"I believe that if we were to devise a system for controlling population humanely"
First of all, overpopulation is a myth at most, and greatly exaggerated at least. If you don't believe me, check out these websites, and you will be more informed on the matter.
http://pop.org...
http://overpopulationisamyth.com...

Next, "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs"
I'm not sure if you are religious or not, but "the way they are designed to be taught" is a very strange sentence. And how would we teach them differently than people before us? Have our parents not taught us that killing and harming is wrong?
And suppose you are not religious. If you aren't religious, isn't it within our instincts to harm others when we are threatened? So wouldn't it be an evolutionary (Evolution being our design, if you don't believe in a creator) hindrance if we refused to hurt or kill, even to survive? And will this new government dictate what parents can teach their children? What happens if you do not teach your children "the way they were designed to be taught"?

" If we designed a web like politic system with no super power,"
By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way.

"the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient"
Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers?

"productive and happy people, advanced far beyond where we are these paradigms are crippling us"
We are advancing on our own, and I don't think that a commune is going to help scientific and cultural growth near as much as our current system.

"Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want."
Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats.

Now, in a perfect world, this just might work, but in your world, what happens if people don't cooperate? What if your system becomes corrupt? And, possible what I am wondering about the most, why do we need to find land?
Please, in the next round, take time to answer some of my points. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Whatif

Pro

Firstly do you like agriculture? It is an amazing industry designed to keep up with the demands of population, isn't it crazy that as you say over population, which I am assuming is your way of saying the increase of population is a "myth" that the agriculture business continues to be one of the fastest growing forms of industry www.ers.usda.gov/media/201254/eb9_1_.pdf simple fact more are born than die what does that leave us with? also I'm assuming china is a myth?

As for your second point
what I mean by "nobody hurt or killed and we taught our children the way they are designed to be taught not as those before us have taught theirs" is that the rigidity and curriculum standards hold several students back preventing them to truly get involved in the education. No, I am not religious I believe in evolution which "designed" our brain for advanced pattern recognition an the retention of information to directly correlate with the pleasure involved with said information I like to call it fun. such as taking kids outside for biology an explaining it more thoroughly and purposefully since I'm sure you'll ask what I mean by purposefully, an explanation of the value of the information and the purpose of the knowledge This next part upset me a little you are smarter than this to know with our level of intelligence that there would be implements of defending ourselves as if we were going to devolve at the attempt at a more peace prone species to a place of pacify that makes us vulnerable to attack from the more than likely small number of convincing psychopaths now let me explain a little deeper every state has an elected council this councils job is not to provide an answer but a question to the people and a way to tally these votes so the people have control of themselves its not a cult diagram or a power agenda it is simply the pursuit not of perfection but science space and understanding of the world around us this Government wont have any say in matters of the home it would be that parents desicion how to raise their child this is only an additional option of a greater education now if there where matters to be dealt with on the policing end such as harm to others then a militia would attempt a peaceful apprehension so evidence could be examined an another vote could take place

" If we designed a web like politic system with no super power,"
By this I suppose you mean no leader. However, when you say "we designed" someone has to design this. Wouldn't they be a leader? And how would a government function without a leader? Would the people always be telling the government what to do on every single issue? People would have to spend all of their time that way.

No that would make that person the designer of a political system, a leader leads they don't design ask obama with obamacare. Have you ever heard of jury duty it would be alot like that for the policing issues with larger juries and for the voting for new elected council members its not like it would be an every day thing.

"the power that would protect us would come from unity we could find land, be self sufficient"
Apparently, we would be self sufficient by relying on others to protect us. This, in itself, is a contradiction. Also, this is the 21st century. Why do we need to "find land"? Are we explorers? Pioneers?

Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean comon did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think

I will ignore the fact that you refereed to my ideas as a commune as anyone with a mind an a few books knows a fallacy of logic when they see one

"Our collective intelligence is the key to true evolution as a people, if only we would set aside prides and use our passion an tenacity for a more efficient, righteous cause, to find truth an to preserve our wonderful future with all the possibilities in the fabric in time waiting for us to decide what we want."
Suppose that for some reason, you do know "the key to true evolution as a people", why would a new system of government be needed? People's collective intelligence is being used right now, as the world's best researchers and universities are sharing and gathering information. Also, who is to say that everyone working together (apparently with no leader, and therefor no order) is going to be more efficient than our current system? Competition is good. It drives us to do better than others, and so we achieve higher feats.

No on this one your right there are no technologies being held down by big businesses and the segregation of knowledge with wealth doesn't exist its not like poor people have to work more denying them education and the rich can spend all there money so the professors from those universities would teach their rich children perpetuating the cycle- facetious sarcasm and competion can be amazing for growth lion cubs use it while playing to reinforce their instincts and prepare for their lives but you know who didn't have any competition Albert Einstein he grew up with nothing more than a few books his father had given him an the idea of magnetism with a pocket compass it wasn't until he was full grown and had developed the theory of relativity that he was even around people with minds like his so yes competition is good as a plaything but real breakthroughs and genius don't need competition to happen

In summary, if people don't cooperate I'm assuming you mean the majority well I have faith in them if they don't think its right it probably isn't criminal acts will be handled civilly where our laws come from the best of all other countries visions if it becomes corrupt the people will revolt it would be law that council men are aloud no security I believe I rudely answered the question of land in the manner you rudely presented it
I understand perfect is not real who wants perfect with nothing left to aim for we would have no point but I believe our point is to be the best we can be an I believe that the majority agrees

Forgive my grammar and punctuation I typed this rather quickly and honestly I don't care its legible are we here to debate or work on our English assignments
WillRiley

Con

I am really not trying to be rude here, but some parts of your last argument were difficult to understand. May I please ask that over the next rounds you make it easier to understand, both for me, and the voters.

There are several reasons that this will not work.
First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years.
You also suggest
"somewhere uninhabited with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think"
and "isn't going to invade someone" so, what we need to do is find a place on the world, that is uninhabited, and not controlled by any nation. There is literally only one place that fits that description, and I don't think you are going to like it.
Its Antarctica.
How are you going to convince the leaders of a country to give up their power? How do you know this will even work?
What you are suggesting, is just not possible.

As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is.

The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years.

The thing is, your system is unnecessary, and will not work.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Whatif

Pro

First- Where are you going to put this place? Either we put it in America or Russia, which, I assure you, will not be on board. We are both proud nations, an we are not about to change how we have been doing things for hundreds of years.

OK if you had read thoroughly you would not have had such trouble understanding as all of these points were answered for instance:


Again, your smarter than this I am referring to self as the country as an entity you see because this way no one goes without because of circumstance there is always help so yes, self sufficient. Now now... you know what your right I'm sure America would be totally on bored or maybe Russia lets just ask them to repent all their history an change all their systems for us a new country like this isn't going to invade someone I mean come on did you think we would just swim around international waters self sufficiently. we have to find !!somewhere uninhabited!! with resources or we start off with war wrong direction don't you think

Do you see those exclamation point I am well aware that neither of those super powers is going give up their way of life that was sarcasm because you made it out as though there would be such difficulties in finding land and it was such an absurd idea as if I had an obvious alternative such as asking another country

Antarctica is a wonderful place few bacteria an viruses due to the cold however I was thinking more along the lines of an island off the coast of Japan owned by Mitsubishi it is literally uninhabited if I could buy that there is a start but there are many places like that


As for my point about overpopulation, if you would have read the pages which I linked you would have had a much better idea of what I was talking about. Sure, there is overcrowding, in places like China, but the whole world is far from being overpopulated. Also, I never said that a growing population was a myth. I said OVER-population was a myth, which it is.

it is simple if it is growing which you just admitted to then eventually at this rate with a finite amount of resources and land we will become over populated eventually why wait until it is a problem to fix it do you honestly believe if we just keep doing what we are doing it will just sort itself out?

The other thing about it, what is wrong with America? Sure, you could say the education system is messed up, and I would agree. However, why do we need a new government? We have an ingenious system of checks and balances, and it has worked for 300 years.

humans are roughly 1000 to 10000 generations old Neanderthals were approximately 130000 years old there is just a scale of how young our species is now your telling me this system is the best its going to be that there's nothing wrong with it that is arrogance America isn't corrupt people aren't stuffing their pockets at the expense of my brothers and sisters? well let me tell you there wasn't much wrong with America in the beggining but as soon as our commander in chief stepped on the constitution an no one stood up we lost the right to say that there is nothing wrong with America. big business represses information on technologies because of greed why do we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one my friend

the thing is government like that an the ones who defend them are unnecessary, and will not work. I want better for my children and yours than to have rights that somebody in a suit can pick an choose when to recognize this isn't a demand or invasion it is simply an idea that I want others to weigh in on because I know that our collective intelligence far exceeds my own lets shoot for the stars or else our legacy will die on this rock an in half the time our Neanderthal cousins did. Don't let that happen because you think this is as good as it gets there are 99% of people with less I don't want anyone who works for it to have less do you


One more thing, when you tell me im not being clear you should tell me with what and how, you know as to be clear.


WillRiley

Con

I find your use of sarcasm both inappropriate and condescending. I ask you to please stop speaking in this manner. Also, I ask that the voters take note of Pro's behavior.

I never said that we are the greatest that we can be. However, we have a system that works well. It's not as if we must start over in order to move forward. We can propose laws and constitutional amendments. I believe that the people are still the rulers of this nation, for we are the ones that put politicians into office, and we are the ones who buy the corporations products and use their services. If you want education reform and humane population control (I would also like to point out you have not yet explained how we would go about doing this) then you need to start a movement. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed. There is no reason for you to have "A New Way" at all, no reason for a new nation.

Also, as for location, Antarctica wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to farm or even stay outside for long periods of time. Now, maybe you could deal with that, but most people will not want to deal with it with you. Also, the island you mentioned is still controlled by Japan. You would not be independent, you would still be subject to Japanese law. Also, so the voters know, this is this island-
http://desertedplaces.blogspot.com...
Now, does that seem like an ideal spot for a utopia?
I think not.

"we need a new government because the people that own this one would kill you if you tried to change a thing that's wrong with this one" I am sure that everyone realizes that the United States government doesn't kill people who speak up for change in government. Enough said on that.
There is a reason that some people have more than others. Its not like people just magically end up with money. And still, everyone in America is doing pretty well as compared to other countries, especially countries with communism and other failing forms of government.

Please, be logical. There is no way this can work.
Also, I would love to hear how you will prevent anyone from hurting or killing.
Debate Round No. 3
Dr.Whatif

Pro

Dr.Whatif forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dr.Whatif

Pro

Dr.Whatif forfeited this round.
WillRiley

Con

I further extend my argument. Due to my opponent's forfeiture and lack of a sound argument, please, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Dr.Whatif 2 years ago
Dr.Whatif
I agree with every point you have but the only reason that a leader is necessary is because simple debates and arguments cannot be absolved with words without a system a jury of people and a place to stake claims an arguments that wont lead to violence instead a filibuster like small claims court with the people as the judges of course there are many kinks to work out but unfortunately i am only one man and there are hard questions made more difficult by the fact that i don't have someone to question me please keep the criticisms coming
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
I can see your idea, however, i've got some quarrels with the actual topic ( all though i don't feel experienced enough to accept).

I've found countless times when surviving that it is essential to have a leader(s).
Everyone can not be leader as that would be similar to socialism which never works because of quarrels and clashing personalities.
Thus a leader must be appointed. But seeing as the leader(s) is/are human:
a) he must be someone everyone can be unanimously content to be elected
b) Of important status (aka can not be self-annointed)
c) He will be prone to mistakes as he is only a human being
d) It is not entirely impossible that he may not be corrupted by power.
e) There will most likely be disputes over the leadership rule, potentially leading to more conflict.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Dr.WhatifWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture