Everything is a social construct.
Debate Rounds (3)
I look forward to a challenging debate.
First though, I would like to ask my opponent a simple question:
Is it not true that mankind has existed for a finite amount of time?
Is it not true that material has existed prior to the existence of man?
In such case, how is it possible that those materials are artificial, without mankind present to create it?
This proposal requires a positive proof, and the burden of proof falls on my opponent to support his assertion that everything was created by man.
As for the notions of society, culture, morals etc. I shall allow my opponent to present his case as he is the one making the proposal.
Thank you to my opponent, and to the audience.
one-2-won forfeited this round.
Thank you to the audience.
It appears that I was too loose in my wording and for that, I apologise.
By everything I do not mean every object, every substance and every material.
Ofcourse things can be natural and not man made.
The way in which we as individuals, view things, however, irrespective of what they are. Is impacted by or environment, our values and our beliefs.
Every opinion that we have can be attributed to our society's norms, values and our own socialisation.
Yes, as you highlight and have proven human beings have been in existance for a relatively short period of time.
But, as far as I am concerned what was in existance prior to us, is irrelevant for this argument. For, at such a time we could not have had values and morals if we did not exist. It is our development as people that has enabled us to establish our beliefs and opinions.
By everything I do not mean all matter and it is entirely my fault for the ambiguity.
The way in which all things are valued and seen, are social consructs.
Society, our values and our morals are all social constructs. Through our families and education we are all taught a clear distincton of what is right and what is wrong. Religion is also a social construct. For man wrote the Bible even if it is supposed to the word of God, this applies similarly to the Torah, Qu'ran nd any other holy text. The value and worth attached to such religious douments is attributed to them solely by our own interpretation. By our personal values and society's values that we have established over time.
Since my opponent has conceded that there are non-artificial, natural things in existence, then it would be prudent of me to show that society, morality, and values are not necessarily artificial.
My opponent argues that these things are social constructs, made entirely by man. She provides the following arguments:
Morality is taught by family and education
Religion is a social construct and the Bible was written by a men.
My opponent provides no clarification on how society is a social construct.
I shall now address her points.
Society- Society as we know it is very complex, and it is easy to attribute this as an artificial rather than a natural thing. However, we know from archaeology that societies need not have been as complex as it is today. Rather, our evolutionary ancestors were known to be social creatures even before language and tool use. Man, by nature, is a social creature, much like how apes and even dogs are social creatures by nature. In this regard, society is not simply artificial, it is in man's very nature to form a society. Society is natural, not artificial.
Morality- Though also a complex issue, Morality's roots are similarly embedded in nature and not purely artificial. Examining the moral codes and sets of law worldwide, there are many acts that are universally seen as "negative". One example would be murder. Having established that mankind naturally forms a society, it must then go on to mean that there are natural ways by which a society is sustained. By the very nature of a society, murder cannot be rampant, it must be restricted in some fashion. Either by artificial laws, or by natural inclination against. Man is naturally inclined against murder because evolutionarily speaking, it would lead to weakening of the population in its totality. When we can attach a biological reasoning to a moral, it makes the assertion that morality is purely artificial, somewhat questionable.
Religion- Again, my opponent views religion in far too complicated a way. While I agree that religion is SUSTAINED artificially, the very roots of Religion are not artificial, but natural. Just as fear and conceptual thinking are natural for a man, so is the development of fantasies such as an afterlife.
Homo Neanderthalis was known to bury their dead with flowers and tools, pendents, and deer parts. The fear of death, the fear of the unknown, the ability to conceive of concepts, these are all natural things, and the natural outgrowth would be the psychological defense mechanism we know to be Religion.
Thus, I have shown that while these three things *seem* like purely social constructs, they indeed are deeply rooted in our very natures and biology.
I thank my opponent for the debate and the audience for their time.
Please vote CON.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.