The Instigator
warllamas
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Civlization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,010 times Debate No: 11195
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (8)

 

warllamas

Con

Civilization is a social construct based on hierarchy and domination. It is environmentally destructive and will eventually collapse once it has destroyed most of the worlds resources. It has caused various social problems creating a society of strangers and absence of communities. These "communication technologies" have alienated and distorted how we actually interact with others. I could go down a huge list of problems with civilization but there is no point.
Sky_ace25

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this challenge and I will now make my opening argument.

My opponent contends civilization leads to global destruction and depletion of resources. However, look closely at the dinosaurs. I believe my opponent would agree they did not have a society and yet they all managed to die out of natural causes; further more it has been theorized that the sun will eventually expand and swallow up the earth or that another asteroid may come and kill us. Thus it is clear to see with or without civilization the world will eventually be blown up and thus my opponent gains no ground with that argument as it is not a negative associated only with civilization.

My opponent claims that civilization is creating a society of strangers and absence of communities. To refute this I will merely ask you, humble voter, go to that "forums" tab at the top of your screen. Do you instantly come to a buzzing chat forum where people are taking? Thus its it safe to assume their are communities? Further more I am capable of referring to all my friends and teachers by name and thus we are not a society of strangers. Hence my opponent's argument is not true in reality and thus do not look to it voter.

The "communication technologies" have actually made it possible for us to have this debate. Were it not for them we would not be able to argue this topic at all. Further more you have social interactions such as Myspace, and Facebook, and further more people are even dating online and finding true love. Thus again my opponent's arguments are based on flawed logic.

The idea that Civilization is a social construct I agree with; however I merely reference Communism and you see that not ALL civilization is based on hierarchy and my opponent must argue in regards to ALL civilization. Further more if it was about domination their would only be about 10 countries in the world; however look at any map and you clearly see marked borders with countries respecting the sovereignty other nations. Thus ignore my opponent's argument here as you clearly see countries are not solely based on domination.

My opponent offers you no other flaws in civilization, and all his current arguments I have proved to be false or irrelevant. Thus you can clearly affirm the idea of Civilization, vote Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
warllamas

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

In paragraph 1 my opponent states that it is irrelevant that civilization will destroy the earth because eventually the sun will die in 5 billion years which is longer than all of human history and the dinosaurs. Though the point is that civilization (if it's not intercepted) will destroy humans and non-humans much faster than any star will.

Next in paragraph 2 he tries to argue that there is some sort of community in debate.org. I mean seriously all it is strangers who want to try to debate strangers over the internet and know nothing about each other accept debate. We aren't even seeing and actually talking participating, and working together. This isn't a community. I am sure the Kalahari Bushmen and so many other hunter gatherer societies have much more community.

I am talking about the quality of the social interaction, people who you spend time up with and build friendships and strong connections. Sure if I want to go to omegle.com and talk to strangers that's fine but ultimately I think it should be quality of quantity. Also isn't all this socialization being on a dull flickering computer monitor, also because the internet so damn anomous people can act like complete jerks (especially in mmorpgs's!!!!).

The last paragraph my opponent claims that not all civilization is based on hierarchy. But this is ignoring how civilization emerged and what is fundamental in all civilization which is domestication, division of labor, private property, the state and private entities, and social stratification. I would highly recommend John Zerzan as a great writer and activist who has theorized alot on how civilization started.

"Further more if it was about domination their would only be about 10 countries in the world"

Well states have increased over history the amount of territory and control over the populous throughout history. Furthermore it is about domination and power and remember not all acts of maintaining power require the survival of one state over all others. They function as territorial monopolies which cooperate with each other once they are large enough. For example the US, Britain, Russia, etc. cooperate together but plunder over smaller states which have areas which profitable resources in the market such as oil from Iraq.

My opponent mindlessly follows the stereotypical dogma of this culture and those in power, and fears to actually question the system civilization which enslaves him, me and the earth. Please in all sanity vote CON.
Sky_ace25

Pro

Now that we have some clash going let's start flowing down my opponents case.

1. My opponent is telling you that some "x" thing from civilization will cause massive deaths, however first of all he offers you no example of what this "x" thing is; further more the idea that an asteroid will hit us is a possibility that can occur any second of any day. Thus, regardless of what my opponent says you clearly see with or without civilization we would be killed anyway. However, let me take this one step forward and turn this argument against my opponent. Humans by constantly progressing in civilization will one day discover the means and tools to destroy this asteroid that may impact us and it is very well possible that we will be able to space travel far away before the sun swallows up. These feats will only be possible because of Civilization.

2. So first of all my opponent says their is no community in debate.org, however first of all it is very easy for people to get to know other people on this website through discussion and debate. I can easily infer that my opponent is an anarchist and thus I can understand his beliefs, hence I know something about my opponent. While I may not know my opponent's real name I can remember him by his user-name. Essentially, removing the notion that we are a society of strangers. Further more in a modern world such as the present, Internet interactions are the wave of the future. Remember my Facebook and MySpace examples of how we can interact with people and friends. If my opponent wants visual interaction then just go to the thousands of online web-cam chat rooms. Further more businesses have hosted online conferences around the world with multiple people thus clearly showing we can work together online. Further more even if you don't buy this my opponent gives you clear examples of hunter societies that have a community, thus contradicting himself. Lastly, my opponent cleanly drops my refute last round of how I can talk to my teachers and friends by name in a society and thus you can extend the point over that civilizations are not creating a society of strangers.

3. So now my opponent is basically trying to bias this debate in is favor by wanting "quality". Well sir, quality is based on how friendly you are in these chat rooms. This is not to say your a bad person, but if people don't like you then people may not want to talk to you. However, let me ask my opponent doesn't real social interaction involve knowing "jerks"? Thus isn't it clear at the instant that we can meet jerks online that we are having a more diverse social interaction? Besides let me turn this argument once more against my opponent by stating that in the modern teen world their many social groups that are unwilling to interact with other people or may be too shy to do so. However, when you go on a chat site you have no idea who you may run into so it is this level of randomness that broadens people's ideals and beliefs and it is this high level of interaction that we prepare ourselves for the reality where we need to be able to interact with a wide variety of groups. Further more "anonymous" people online are merely trying to conceal their identity; how is this any more different than slipping in to a caf� one day and having a friendly conversation with a stranger, or picking up a random girl for a one-night stand.

4. OK fine let's accept that civilization is based on hierarchy, (I'm sorry all you Communists out their). Doesn't the natural world already function on the idea of natural selection? Doesn't the mighty predator at the top of the food chain dominate the animal at the bottom? Even within a select breed you will always have examples of how males fight each other to claim right to a select female, with only the strongest prospering. Thus we clearly see that in a state of nature their would still be hierarchy regardless as is evidently clear around the natural world. However, again turn this argument against my opponent; it is through our modern advancement that we can make hierarchy less brutal. For example I can go work under my boss without fearing that he/she will kill me, and I can also try and woo that special someone even if I'm competing with somebody else, without having to go into a life or death brawl. So civilization can make natural hierarchy less brutal.

5. Yes, I agree that over-time certain states have gotten bigger and more powerful by conquering, however again look at any map. The U.S. could easily invade most of Africa and conquer it, yet it has not done it yet. Thus we clearly see super-powers have different agendas then just conquering. Now then about his cooperation examples. First of all after the Cold War if you believe Russia and the U.S. have a friendly relationship then you are clearly misguided. Most super-powers are constantly competing for more and more power and dominance and it is through this that humanity ultimately progresses forward at the accelerated rate that it is. A concise quote by Bismarck states, "States don't have permanent friends, or permanent enemies, they have permanent interests". Using Bismarck quotes we see that no countries have "hand-in-hand" relationships. Further more we TRADE with small states we don't go and forcibly take it. That would be conquering which we clearly do not do. Trading is a mutually beneficial agreement that benefits all and thus clearly my opponent gains no ground with this argument. Further more even if you don't buy this argument just extend the theory of natural selection. With or without civilization we would still be tempted to take that which we do not have, thus this harm is not only civilization related.

6. Yes, I "mindlessly" follow the "stereotypical dogma" of civilization. Damn my ignorance! How dare I like my PlayStation, computer, library, public education system, hospitals, sports programs, media program, television! How dare I like all the luxuries that are bestowed upon me by a constantly progressing race of humans that have evolved from primitive savages to an advanced race! How dare I aspire to become a top dog person when I grow older and aspire to become some rich executive or host of my own television show! Yes voters, pick the "sanity vote", but in reality what is sanity? Sanity my friends, is civilization, progression of human society, sanity is Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
warllamas

Con

Now for the kill.

1) The "x" is the ideology of violence and domination. Even if I had given no "x" this in no way disproves the violence caused by civilization. The ideology in everyone's mind is that civilization is sustainable, beneficial to are survival, increasing the standard or quality of life, and that there is some sort of intrinsic value to this industrializing machine "that rests on the destruction of nature, that separates us from the natural world, that has people on this treadmill to constantly work, constantly consume. It's madness. It's destroying everything and just has to go" (John Zerzan). Let me now refute the claim that space exploration will save us from our sun blowing up in 5 billion years. Because civilization is unsustainable, the earth's resources will be depleted. If oil vanished tomorrow all of civilization would collapse, because civilization is so interconnected and each factor relies on the rest, for example oil is used for transportation, which is used for cars, planes, boats etc. which transfers agricultural products also known as FOOD!
And if 7Billion people don't have food then civilization is doomed. The counter arguments to this would be the "green technologies" ya like Ford is a green corporation what a load of sh**.

"_____So first of all my opponent says their is no community in debate.org, however first of all it is very easy for people to get to know other people on this website through discussion and debate.____"

Ya really, sure you probably have 1 or 2 debates with someone then what? Do you continue talking with them, is there any build up in your friendship, relationship etc. For one thing we aren't even seeing each other and interacting in the same environment (location), that takes a huge chunk of the social communication when you can't see facial expressions, hearing each other, seeing each other, and I would say at least one fundamental part of a community is being together, not through the internet. I am not sure... why my opponent insists that this website is a community it seems very absurd and to most new users of this site and outside observers will probably recognize this very fast.

Also if your actually trying to tell me that Facebook and Myspace are social.... From my experience and many other friends and I have also heard from many people online the problems with social networking sites. If my opponent thinks that having 300-1000 friends is natural or in the slightest normal then I am simply going to call that insanity. Sure anyone can add a stranger or a friend of friend of a family member to the "friends list" and play Farmville and Mafia Wars or take advertisement surveys from corporations, how fun! But if your actually going to believe that this is actual community with healthy or semi- normal social interaction then a further rebuttal is not needed because the problems with these social networking is obvious and apparent.

"___Further more "anonymous" people online are merely trying to conceal their identity; how is this any more different than slipping in to a caf� one day and having a friendly conversation with a stranger, or picking up a random girl for a one-night stand.___"

Ya there is a great difference reality. You are actually there with that person interacting as a human not through a machine which was made through the destruction of the earth and nature. In fact we could trace the line of production especially since a lot of are products are made from child workers in china, and women and men who spend the whole year living inside the factory and only get to see there children and family for less than a week during holidays.
The wages are degrading and scarce.

Let me now ask you the voters of this debate is it moral for a worker who works practically there whole lives in degradation under a system that forces them into these arbitrary roles as cogs in the industrial machine. The bosses and CEO's who boss them around and abuse them. "Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital"(Bob Black). Is this system that destroys nature moral? Think about it "If, on the other hand, your food comes from a landbase and your water comes from a river, then you�€™ll defend to the death that landbase and that river, because your life depends on them." (Derrick Jensen) That means that we will defend private industry and the state because it gives s resources, but in a unsustainable way which is destroying everything.

I have changed my political views alot in the last 2 years, republican , democrat, ron paul vulgar libertarian, communism, anarcho capitalism, mutualism, direct democracy,technocracy, anarchism, free-market anarchism, agorism, left rothbardian, venus project, anarcho syndicalism, left libertarianism, transhumanism and now primitivism. I believe primitivism is the natural state of humans, and that we will live happy fulfilling lives beyond civilization. We don't need governments, republics this industrial capitalist machine, that is enslaving us under a hierarchy of bosses, wealth, classes with different power on the hierarchy. My opponent has an absurd political position, unlike me he wanders in the fantasy that this system can be change by those in power. Even if Sarah Palin got into power in 2012 and stopped Obama the violence of the civilizing system will still lead to it's inevitable end. My opponent has showed no evidence that civilization will not collapse and devastate the planet. He has merely used a common neo conservative tactic is to attack the liberals at every point yet never and use there attack on the liberal ideas to justify there system. Rather than focus on what actually happens in a free market such as slavery, 14 hour working conditions, they simply attack communism. The cold war was justified by the anti communist ideology in are culture manufactured by those in power. Anyway I am not going to ramble on about the Cold War as it is not that important. OK next topic natural hierarchy, this is true and will always exist in civilization and hunter-gatherer societies. Now my opponent will try to convince you that there is no difference in the amount of hierarchy, remember hunter gather societies are mostly extended family so the hierarchy that will exist is familiar hierarchy, but unlike western society the San people in the Kalahari Dessert don't beat there children and never speak harshly. They are very relaxed people with healthy social relations. The parents aren't forced to work and are separated from the children, and much more leisure time and so there life is happy and the work which they do would be considered skilled hobbies by most westerners, such as fishing, hunting, making clothes, firemaking, making shelters. The hierarchy in civilization is extreme at least half of the world makes less than $1 a day! while those higher on the hierarchy enjoy the wealth from the suffering of others.That is what capitalism is a system where in order to gain power and a high standard of living (which is really just an artificial environment) you have to exploit and gain domination on those lower in the hierarchy.
This is what civilization is.

Voters, I negate that playstations are worth the human suffering caused by civilization. Vote against free market FASCISM. The Hobbesian Myth can prevail no longer! We must be human and bring about the archaic revival and bring back the original affluent society! Nature must not die because of the Kapitalists Neo Conservative Monarchists! Vote CON!

http://www.zpub.com...
http://zoeblunt.wordpress.com...

http://www.eco-action.org...
Sky_ace25

Pro

I will refute my opponents contentions in order and then go big picture, humble voter.

"Now for the kill"-my opponent is making a direct threat on my personal life

1. My opponent tells you that civilization is violent and corrupt, however my opponent has still not proved in any way why a state of nature is a BETTER alternative. Remember my argument about natural selection which goes cleanly dropped in my opponents last refute, even if we were in a state of nature their would be even more moral injustices, because all my opponents arguments just prove that humans have the capacity to be bad. Were it not for the just checks by law provided by government these injustices would become even more rampant, which is why humans avoided the state of nature to begin with. Thus turn this argument against my opponent. My opponent agrees that we may be killed by natural causes, his only counter being the time span. However, their is for example the fear of the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park which may erupt at any moment, and cause the entire world to be flooded with ash. This would cause world-wide famine for years. My opponent's oil argument is answered by himself, "green technologies", a field that is becoming very popular in the near future and will most likely solve any fears of oil. However, Yellowstone may go boom at any moment, a gamma ray may hit us and destroy out atmosphere at any moment, a meteor may hit us at any moment. All these things can occur at any given time and place and thus humanity is doomed with-or-without civilization. Further more my opponent completely drops my turn on this argument last round, remember the only reason we will be saved these crimes is because civilization has advanced us to the point where we can identify these threats and start thinking of how to stop them, thus another turn on my opponent.

2 and 3. My opponent now is trying to skew his argument by saying that now he wants quality in social interaction, however his initial argument was that society has no social interactions at all. My opponent conceding that their are social interactions answer his argument. Further more their are members this site who have had a mass amount of debates, and further more my opponent's only standard for communication is that we see, hear, and talk. I repeat! Web cam chat rooms have become very popular that allow for seeing other people, hearing them talk, and being able to talk back in person. My opponent cleanly drops my web cam argument in his last refute and thus you can extend this as a reason to vote for me; remember also my turn that because of web cam and civilization we are able to talk to even MORE people and we are able to even host web-conferences, increasing the ultimate benefit of people-thus turn this. My opponent is also contradicting himself, because he says 300-1,000 friends is a bad thing, yet he is clearly advocating for community ties.

4. Let's make two arguments here, first of all using the same analogy, because of the Internet it is like I can go to 5,000 caf�s in one night and pick the girl I like the most and chat her up AND THEN meet her in real life, it's called online dating a very popular trend. Further more my opponent is saying the status quo is bad, yet A. he is willing to have this debate online clearly showing he benefits from this suffering and thus he is contradicting, and B. Even if the status quo is bad my opponent must prove that the first alternative is a state of nature, and that the state of nature would be BETTER than the current status quo, which he has not done. Further more I repeat, Natural Selection, the powerful dominate the weak, it is in the genetic structure of all life on Earth, a state of nature would not solve for this.

5. My opponent is arguing Communism, Communism still has a government and a sovereign state and thus it is still civilization, my opponent is merely making an argument that benefits my side, he would like a civilization that is not modeled after the status quo, another turn. Further more I repeat..Natural Selection...and further more voter all the luxuries you enjoy are BECAUSE of all this social hierarchy. Further more my opponent is willing to say that we will defend private industry and the state, thus contradicting himself. My opponent says its unsustainable, but if the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE will defend it, which is what my opponent says, it is clear that it is for the better

6. He changes his views...no argument..."primitivism" has the suffix "ism" meaning rule by, so he is still advocating for a state and sovereign body which is civilization, he just wants a backward country. Turn that against him he is on helping my side. My opponent offers you his opinion on a multiple subjects yet his own argument says the entire world would defend the state and society and thus the entire world trumps his own opinion. I am not arguing that civilization will not...after an eternity crush the planet...I am arguing that natural causes are going to kill us first BEFORE that. Thus, the harm of human extinction is not solely based on society. Further more think of examples like Small Pox, it was only stopped, because of a mass effort by the CIVILIZATION in the modern world working together. Without this the human race may have very well gone extinct, showing civilization preserved us and it is also capable of working together fort he common good, another turn. My opponent has called me a conservative, I agree, my opponent is saying I'm arguing anti-liberal. Liberals don't argue for a state of nature, they argue for the most liberties and the least government intervention, also the idea that humans are inherently good. John Locke a prominent liberal and, (people argue founder of Communism), argue that a state of nature is not beneficial, because of a lack of higher authority to appeal to. Thus affirming my case as the idea of natural selection extends again. My opponent tells you about people in the Kalahari Desert* that don't beat their children and never speak harshly, in the U.S. we call that child-abuse and we have laws against that...no real ground gained here.

7/Framework...*Sigh*....my opponent has gone on to rambling a communist argument. I repeat Communism is merely an opposite form of government than Capitalism. It is still a GOVERNMENT and thus it still is a CIVILIZATION. My opponent remember first round accepted the burden of proof to prove that ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE BAD. All arguments pertaining to communism being good only contradict my opponent as he is essentially admitting that their are some forms of civilization that are good. Thus, turn my opponents entire case turns against him. Further more Capitalism is only Natural Selection in a more moral sense, as at least we do not inhumanely slaughter all those who get in our way. It happens in nature every day, in a state of nature abuse would still happen as the strong trump the weak. My opponent has offered you no reason to vote for the idea that CIVILIZATION is bad, but only that Capitalism is bad. I have refuted all his points, remember Natural Selection which my opponent concedes to, so thus it would happen anyway in a state of nature thus all his points only strengthen my case.

Keep in mind: My opponent never links his evidence to his websites, he only says random names throughout his cases, so thus he can't have the source vote on those grounds. Further more all my opponent's videos are irrelevant as he has not introduced the value of any them into the debate and he can't just leave a video to do all his arguing thus he gains no ground off those videos, you may disregard them.

In the end my opponent's entire case is contradictory, off topic, and even after my own "generic flawed logic" has entered the debate, you still see, the only clear vote is Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
warllamas

Con

I will start out in defending the lifestyle of the hunter-gatherers. I recognize that hunter-gather life being an alternative to the Status Quo doesn't justify prove it to be better than the Status Quo by itself. Hunter-gatherer has been used for most of human history before civilization and even a few remaining today such as the Mbuti, Kalahari Bushmen, Hadza people and various others, but most have been converted or forced into the new capitalist industrialist life, or the agricultural life. As for the remaining hunter-gatherers are being forced off there land (which there ancestors had lived for thousands and thousands of years) by governments. Hunter-gatherer societies work from 14-19 hours a week, yet it is unclear whether to define it as work, because most of it is skilled tasks such as fishing, firemaking, hunting, tool making and so forth. Now it may just be personal preference but I would find the skills and tasks preformed by the hunter-gathers are more interesting and fulfilling than working at an 8 hour desk job, or in a mine, or spending from sunrise till sundown working on maintaining a farm which requires lots of work. Al the social organization is mostly egalitarian and the absence of patriarchy which emerged early in civilization, in other words women and men are equal in economic and social life. Hunter-gatherers don't use barter or monetary exchange, instead they use a sustainable gift economy in which everyone shares resources in order to get resources. Unlike capitalism where everyone in society competes against each other to horde resources to themselves, people share resources in an act of mutual aid which is contrast to the view of the capitalists that human nature is competitive. Even when a bushmen kills an animals with a arrow he uses poison that puts the animals to sleep so that it will not suffer a painful death. The hunter tells the animals that he doesn't want to kill it but has to provide for his/her family. This connection with nature is unseen in civilization which most people are isolated from nature and view it as a mere resource to be exploited. The lack of hierarchy and a tendency for egalitarianism is caused by many factors which keeps society in it's natural equilibrium. Hunter-gathers move around and get food from multiple land-bases, this prevents from chieftains or rulers to form. In areas such as the Pacific Northwest West (which I live in) have more concentrated resources. Pacific Northwest Tribes could stay in a one place and they had more hierarchy in there societies than hunter-gathers as the Bushmen.

We can now conclude that hunter gatherers are egalitarian, distribute resources by sharing in a gift economy, stay mobile (decentralizing the land bases which they get food). Have a unique view of nature in a way a spiritual view. (I am an atheist but religions will naturally emerge and religions which support nature and aren't violent and oppressive like Christianity which emerged in civilization are fine with me and actually beneficial!) Contains skilled tasks rather than repetitive unskilled work. Work is 14-19 hours a week compared to 40-45 hours at the least in rich civilizations.

Now for civilization. Why should we work are whole lives being told that this is leading to some great end. Power, wealth success or whatever in a unsustainable system which is destroying the world. Is the great pyramids, technology, art worth the human suffering. Ultimately this comes down to whether we should value civilization and stay civilized at the cost of the earth and ourselves. OVER half the people in the world make less than a $1 a DAY! While on the opposite extreme of the hierarchy lies the wealthy CEO's politicians, Corporate Investors. They are the rulers they are at the top of the hierarchy of civilization owning most of the worlds resources, privatizing water and food. If we CHOOSE to be a rational free society them we should have the empathy to allow basic elements of survival such as Food, Water and Shelter as attainable regardless of power of the economic ladder. Civilization has released the violent aggressive tendency's of Man. To serve artificial institutions that care nothing for us and keep the system of domination, conquest, and exploitation into perpetual motion. The planet will not be saved by "green technologies" because technology is a double edged sword. Nuclear energy was supposed to save the world but it gave us atrocities such as Hiroshima, Cherynoble, Long Island. Technology can be used for dangerous purposes and this risk is increased highly when these dangerous technologies are at the hand of the rulers themselves. We can vote into the system, but to gain decision making power for everyone in a society requires the destruction of civilization. Nanotechnology is coming soon and technocrats, futurists, and transhumanists are praying for this technological advancement which they believe will benefit man, but they fail to realize that this can enslave mans own mind and destroy the world much quicker than the nuclear bomb could.

Voters I declare that the only way in which Homo Sapiens will survive and live happily is through the collapse of civilization. The transition may be deadly but it will happen eventually. By than it may be too late for life on earth, but this is the tyranny which this civilizing system imposes on the world.
Sky_ace25

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate, but I will now turn most of his arguments against him to prove Civilization is good.

So my opponent is trying to defend hunter-gatherer societies, but he admits that they have been converted into the new capitalist life style. When people are converted by a more dominant authority we again affirm the idea of natural selection; the strong conquer the weak. This happens in nature anyway so my opponent gains no ground as this is not a harm associated only with civilization.

My opponent talks about jobs and preferences, however I contend that it is thanks to the modern civilization that we have MORE diverse jobs than just farming, hunting, and gathering. Remember my argument that civilization is the progression of mankind, you can easily apply that here. Due to civilization I am able to diversify the job market, my opponent assumes the only choice is a desk job, however in any college their are many careers offered such as law, marketing, and diversity. Furthermore my opponent has made the claim that a desk job is dull and boring, but with no evidence that the rest of the world feels this way. In fact their are many people who enjoy the simply life of going to desk job and typing away in a simple life style, as opposed to doing primitive labor which my opponent suggests is better. My opponent defines a hunter-gatherer society as egalitarian, as having a sustainable economy. This means as of right now you can turn my opponents entire case against him as clearly these people have some form of structural system and thus do not live in the abstract that is the state of nature. Clearly they are in a civilization, so even if you buy all my opponent's arguments, just turn them all against him as you clearly see hunter-gatherer societies are civilizations themselves. My opponent even states that these societies are civilizations as he states, "which emerged early in civilization".

My opponent is again repeating arguments against the Status Quo which is completely irrelevant to the debate topic where my opponent must prove ALL civilization is bad, a burden he has accepted. Furthermore even if we buy that in Capitalism there is a major competitive market to succeed; I contend it is this fact that has lead to the progression of mankind. After all, isn't it the goal of a doctor to cure cancer to help himself? However, in the process of benefiting himself he does a great service to the entire human race. Thus you clearly see competition is a positive and thus another turn on my opponent. My opponent keeps saying civilization has to be tied with nature yet he never tells you WHY. I contend, as I did earlier, humans are the dominant species on Earth and thus have the right t do as they see fit. I repeat, NATURAL SELECTION, the FOOD CHAIN, my opponent cleanly drops these concepts and thus you see it is in nature for animals to be oppressive. Thus my opponent gains no ground with equality arguments as even in a lack of government there is still oppression. F

My opponent argues that egalitarian societies are "skilled" jobs;
Definition of skilled: having or showing or requiring special skill
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I am more than capable of going out fishing with any rod just like anybody else, but is everybody able to be a rocket scientist? Clearly we see that jobs in civilization are more skillful than any primitive alternative my opponent requires. Furthermore my opponent keeps saying 14-19 hours in a week, but he never manages to establish how that is a good thing. There are many people who love their job and wish work for hours on end by choice. Thus, this deprivation of excitement comes from primitive societies and thus another turn on my opponent's case.

My opponent makes an abstract opinion by saying that civilization is unsustainable, I look all around me and I see society is still around, it will still be around when I go to sleep tonight, and thus you clearly see it is sustainable. My opponent ares that over half the people in the world make less than a $1 a day, however it is only because of our great civilization that everybody even has access to a job! Turn this argument against my opponent, were it not for globalization and outreach their would be even fewer money earned as their would be less demand for laborers; thus we clearly see more jobs come from more civilization another turn. All arguments about social dominance...again Natural Selection which is in every animal, not a harm associated only with civilization.

My opponent says we serve artificial institutions who don't care about us; why then is there such a thing as EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. Clearly this is a false statement. My opponent says "green technologies" is a double-edged sword, however I see no fault in a solar panel. The solar panel is not evil or morally corrupt and it is not going to kill me anytime soon. Again, the death of the world argument, remember my opponent cleanly drops my argument that the world will eventually be blown up anyway by Gamma Rays or the sun exploding. You clearly see that this is not a civilization-harm only, and remember my turn! Technological advancement is the only that that will be able to stop this! Furthermore nanotechnology will make fighting microscopic diseases even easier and thus they are an ultimate benefit, another turn.

My opponent's entire case is contradictory as I've proved, and even if you don't believe that remember voters my opponent has not proved why CIVILIZATION is bad, but only why the Status Quo is bad. The Status Quo is not civilization and even if you believe hunter-gatherer societies are better, my opponent still defines them as the early strides in civilization, thus you clearly see that my opponent admits Civilization is better than a state of nature.

Clear Voters:

1. My opponent's entire case has been turned.

2. He has only proved why Civilization is good and why backwardness is bad.

3. He never proves why Civilization is bad, only his biased opinion towards Capitalism.

4. He never has direct harms that only are derived from Civilization, remember natural selection would occur anyway in a state of nature and thus you still have oppression.

5. My opponent has given you absolutely no justifiable reason to vote for him other than his own biased opinion.

Thus, I thank my opponent for this debate, but when the question of Civilization comes in to play, a strong vote for Pro is to be advised and justified.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidSSabb94 6 years ago
DavidSSabb94
"I will refute my opponents contentions in order and then go big picture, humble voter.
"Now for the kill"-my opponent is making a direct threat on my personal life"

LOL!
Posted by Reasoning 7 years ago
Reasoning
"Note to anarchists, socialists, syndicalists, libertarians, When republicans advocate free markets they are not advocating that the market should be free like Proudhon advocated. They want a global enslaved market where governments can take over smaller states for resources such as Afghanistan, Iraq. This is why conservatives love war and the state, because they believe all this violence can lead to a Free Market what fools!" - Warllamas

Precisely.
Posted by Reasoning 7 years ago
Reasoning
"Anarchy must, without violating its own terms, eventually grow into minarchy."

False.
Posted by killimination 7 years ago
killimination
Ive met some retarded people in my life, but you guys are the most retarded.HAHAH, I enjoyed your debate, but take no side.
Posted by warllamas 7 years ago
warllamas
@Aesius, I would agree that even if civilization were to collapse and humans where to kill themselves, they could not get rid of all life on the planet.

@J.Kenyon, When I refer to domestication I am not only taking about dogs and cows, but how we domesticated and classified ourselves, in a hunter gatherer society differences and classifications are reduced to a natural minimum. When civilization began about 13 thousand years ago classifications started to increase drastically. Also Minarchy is not a solution as the state has an incentive to continue growing and gaining resources and land, it is a parasite which keeps the civilizing process going. Also minarchy is kind of Utopian, as private industry and state will work together to continue the process and expand.
Posted by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
At current population levels and density, I would say so.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Also, isn't domestication inherently less harmful than other means of gaining sustenance? It limits whatever damage may be done to a single, confined area and a group of animals bred and maintained for a specific purpose.

Anarchy must, without violating its own terms, eventually grow into minarchy. I suggest Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" for an ethical and political evaluation of the two systems.
Posted by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
What you also must understand is that hunter gatherer societies can disrupt the environment. Much of the megafauna that once walked upon North America was brought to extinction by hunters and climate change, thousands of years before civilization existed.
Posted by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
Animals other than humans have indeed "devastated" the world, perhaps not to the scale humans have, but beavers drastically change an envronment when they are introduced.

Social status, private property, agriculture, and even warfare are not unique to humans.

Leaf cutter ants are excellent examples of animals that "farm"

Private territories are found in many animals.

We are animals. We are a part of it's earth, it's history, and it's processes. We just need to change our our priorities to ensure a future.

You seem to hold that the meaning of civilization inherently means that "devastation" must have happened.

The world and it's species has been devastated long before humans appeared. There have been times in history where 50-60% of genera went extinct. Perhaps humans are starting a new mass extinction, and certainly will, if we continue our policies. But it is arrogance to assume that the Earth as a whole will die from human activity. We might take down many species with us, but I doubt humans would be able to wipe out life entirely.
Posted by warllamas 7 years ago
warllamas
Aesius, I think you are confusing what civilization is. When I say civilization I mean the process of domestication, agriculture that transfers the means of getting food and requires private property and governments, hierarchy unseen in hunter-gather societies. Other animals haven't devastated the world like we have done thus they do not have civilization.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by arenax3 6 years ago
arenax3
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 6 years ago
dankeyes11
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 6 years ago
kristoffersayshi
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 6 years ago
atheistman
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Aesius 7 years ago
Aesius
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
warllamasSky_ace25Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07