The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Everything is a social construct.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/4/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,634 times Debate No: 7674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




It is my belief that everything is man made. Society's morals, views and values are all social constructs. Something that society and it's members have established over time.

I look forward to a challenging debate.


I thank my opponent for starting this debate and I will now begin to make my argument.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


one-2-won forfeited this round.


It's a shame my opponent forfeited. Extend my arguments to the next round.

Thank you to the audience.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, for accepting my debate.

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.


I thank my opponent for being able to find the time to respond, as I was afraid this debate would be wasted, and also thank my opponent for clarifying the topic statement.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
C: Pro forfeited a round and was unclear in her opening statement. Points go to CON.
S&G: No noticeable problems with S&G on either side. TIED.
A: Not only did Pro start off with an argument that Con debunked, Pro provided little to no evidence for her points even after the clarification. Points go to CON.
S: Con was the only one to provide sources. Points go to CON.

Advice for Pro: The debate was going well, but there are a few common blunders made. The first would obviously be the forfeiting. Forfeiting a debate usually loses you points for conduct and possibly argument. The second- You should check for loopholes in the topic statement, and if it doesn't fit, reword the topic statement officially before making your preliminary argument. Finally, it is important for the instigator to give off a strong argument in the last round, because the contender has the last word.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
I don't use napalm to kill weeds :O
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
4 wikipedia links?
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Yeah, a pretty giant loophole there...
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
Because the sky, the ocean, the mountains and the grass are all man made.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
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