The Instigator
Flyboy254
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
That1User
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Idiocracy realized?

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 2 votes the winner is...
That1User
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 582 times Debate No: 72127
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Flyboy254

Pro

Simple interaction with the mouth-breathing masses confirms this.
That1User

Con

Since pro is making the affirmative statement that Idiocracy is indeed realized, s/he has the BoP to comfirm this statement.
Since pro has not given any definitions in this round:, I will provide definitions.

Idiocracy: "Idiocracy is a 2006 American satirical science fiction comedy film directed by Mike Judge and starring Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Dax Shepard, and Terry Crews. The film tells the story of two people who take part in a top-secret military hibernation experiment, only to awaken 500 years later in a dystopian society wherein advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism have run rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a uniformly unthinking society devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Realized: To become real, to become achieved (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Arguments:
1) The movie Idiocracy has not become realized because it is a fictional movie, and thus cannot become real.
2) The movie Idiocracy has not become realized because we are currently in the present, not 500 years in the future.
3) The movie Idiocracy has not become realized because advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism has not made society unthinking and devoid of intellectual curiousity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights.
A) Society is not unthinking: Society is thinking, as ideas various ideas are constantly discussed in society. Recently the issue of gun control has been discussed at my school.
B) Intellectual curiousity remains, advances in science and technology are proof of this, as well as a thinking society.
C) Social responsibility is a topic that is currently being discussed in our society, particularly if we have a duty to help society and how we should help society. The welfare debate is a good example of this.
D) Justice is also a topic that is being argued, in and outside of the court room.
E) Coherent notions of justice and human rights is not gone, as there are many human rights organizations and charities in the United States and elsewhere in the world. (ie the American Red Cross, UNICEF, etc.)

The Resolution is negated. (The fact that I negated Pro's resolution in a coherrent manner further proves that Idiocracy has not been realized, as in Idiocracy people were not able to make coherrent arguments save the two main protagonists. The website debate.org also proves that Idiocracy has not been realized, as ideas are discussed constantly on this site.)

I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Flyboy254

Pro

We are in fact, in the present. But as soon as I complete this rebuttal, it will be part of our history and therefore 500 years from now could in fact be today. Did you establish the calendar? Do you and I really know whether or not the current date we are using is accurate? That's a mute point though so I digress.

The examples which you have provided are in fact good examples however there is one major flaw. The debate and intellectual curiosity to which you alluded are examples based on a very select few persons within our society. We are shown examples in the media of people who are arguing intelligibly over basic human rights and social responsibility. But on the level with the general population, you would be hard pressed to find someone with a coherent argument for or against human rights that isn't based on the rhetoric of whatever political party they claim to be a part of. Take members of the tea party for example.

Secondly, the social media aspect of modern life (if you can call it "modern"). Look to what has people talking on twitter and facebook. The gold/white dress. Or is it the blue/black dress? That was the most important topic of the day a couple weeks back. Even after doctors explained the phenomenon you still had the masses saying "nuh uh, it's gold and white!" with the rebuttal "nuh uh, it's black and blue". That is a key example of anti-intellectualism. Also in the debate of equal rights for say gay marriage. The one side argues equal rights destroys the moral fabric of society while the other side just wants the same rights as everyone else. This is also an anti-intellectual argument because neither side brings up the most important of all points, gay people exist whether you legislate it or not, they have always existed and they always will exist. This moral fabric of society is hot air and anti-intellectual. With or without equal rights this has always been the case. So really it's not an argument at all because either way, gay people will be gay, straight people will be straight and society will carry on as normal. Were it not for the media selecting the handful of intellectuals to speak on the issue, there would be no sign of intellectual curiosity in the argument. The coherent notion of justice and equal rights is a bad example of this because there are many places in this world where slavery exists, human trafficking exists and being gay is punishable by death. Not because those societies are intellectually progressive but because they are oppressed and do nothing to stop the oppression because the governments they are subject to have bigger guns than them. Which brings up your example of the gun debate. Assuming you are an American, the gun debate is another non-existent debate. Drugs, like heroine, cocaine and meth are 100% illegal. Yet we have to the tone of millions who are addicted to these drugs. So the debate of making society a better place by legalizing possession of all guns or making it illegal to possess guns is also non-existent. With or without the legislation, you will have people who possess them and people who do not. Those against the right to bear arms think that you make it illegal and that is the end of the story, society will be better off. But with the example of illegal drugs and gay marriage, you are going to have gay people being gay and people possessing guns regardless of the law. There is no social responsibility to be had in either case since the law will accomplish next to nothing and therefore the debate in itself is anti-intellectual.

I say idiocracy is realized because we have societal problems that could easily be addressed, like education reform, medical coverage and social welfare but are being ignored so the powers that be can keep the angry masses divided against each other over non-issues like gun control and gay marriage. We allow them to dictate the context in which we discuss social responsibility and justice rather than using our own intelligence to draw our own conclusions.

Also. The fact that debate.org exists proves one thing, there are a handful of people out there who are capable of thinking for themselves and actually use their intelligence to argue over different topics. However, what, if any, social reform comes from this website? None that I'm aware of. So really, we are debating ourselves in circles here without any impact on society as a whole. Therefore, it is another non-issue.
That1User

Con

We are in fact, in the present. But as soon as I complete this rebuttal, it will be part of our history and therefore 500 years from now could in fact be today. Did you establish the calendar? Do you and I really know whether or not the current date we are using is accurate? That's a mute point though so I digress.

According to the Georgian 1 year is about 365 days. 365 x 500 = 182500 days, more or less, not counting leap years. So no, your completation of your rebuttal is not over 182500 days, it is about 3 days if you used the maximum time to type this rebuttal. The Georgian Calender is quite accurate, being only about 26 seconds off the actual solar year (http://www.infoplease.com...). But I digress.

The examples which you have provided are in fact good examples however there is one major flaw. The debate and intellectual curiosity to which you alluded are examples based on a very select few persons within our society.

The examples I have provided are from my own personal expierence, which is a minority of our society overall, so of course this is a flaw. However, my interactions with society do reflect society as a whole, so there is evidence that people do discuss intellectual topics.

But on the level with the general population, you would be hard pressed to find someone with a coherent argument for or against human rights that isn't based on the rhetoric of whatever political party they claim to be a part of. Take members of the tea party for example.

What do you mean by the "general population?" I doubt that you have interacted with the majority of society, which I am assuming you are reffering to American society. What sampling of the (American) population do you mean by the general population? What is wrong with using arguments of rhetoric from a political party? People's arguments are often based on other's arguments, our interactions with eachother add to our knowledge on things. Using arguments from political party rhetoric is not neccessarily bad, as it leads to discussion on important issues. This example demonstrates that people do discuss important issues and thus Idiocracy is not realized.

Secondly, the social media aspect of modern life (if you can call it "modern"). Look to what has people talking on twitter and facebook. The gold/white dress. Or is it the blue/black dress? That was the most important topic of the day a couple weeks back. Even after doctors explained the phenomenon you still had the masses saying "nuh uh, it's gold and white!" with the rebuttal "nuh uh, it's black and blue". That is a key example of anti-intellectualism.

How is it an example of anti-intellectualism? Anti-intellectualism is defined as " opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I do not see how the debate of the Dress is anti-intellectual. In fact, it brought up an interesting discussion on sense perception and how different people see differently, and the effects that lighting and shadow have on one's perception of the world. This shows that everyone sees the world differently, because each individual has a different set of eyes, as well as a different life expierence.

Also in the debate of equal rights for say gay marriage. The one side argues equal rights destroys the moral fabric of society while the other side just wants the same rights as everyone else. This is also an anti-intellectual argument because neither side brings up the most important of all points, gay people exist whether you legislate it or not, they have always existed and they always will exist. This moral fabric of society is hot air and anti-intellectual. With or without equal rights this has always been the case. So really it's not an argument at all because either way, gay people will be gay, straight people will be straight and society will carry on as normal.

You are making assertions at this point, and overgeneralizing the gay marriage debate by strawmanning the positions in order to further your case, as the way you describe the debate makes it seem like it is anti-intellectual, when in reality it much more complex than that. Also, how is the moral fabric of society hot air and anti-intellectual? Morality is an important field of philosophy, an intellectual field, so I fail to understand how the moral fabric of society is hot air and anti-intellectual.

The coherent notion of justice and equal rights is a bad example of this because there are many places in this world where slavery exists, human trafficking exists and being gay is punishable by death. Not because those societies are intellectually progressive but because they are oppressed and do nothing to stop the oppression because the governments they are subject to have bigger guns than them.

Yes, and the objective of Human rights groups is to eliminate slavery in the most effective way possible, as well as other human rights violations. Upholding justice and equal rights is essential in advancing society.
Which brings up your example of the gun debate. Assuming you are an American, the gun debate is another non-existent debate. Drugs, like heroine, cocaine and meth are 100% illegal. Yet we have to the tone of millions who are addicted to these drugs. So the debate of making society a better place by legalizing possession of all guns or making it illegal to possess guns is also non-existent. With or without the legislation, you will have people who possess them and people who do not. Those against the right to bear arms think that you make it illegal and that is the end of the story, society will be better off. But with the example of illegal drugs and gay marriage, you are going to have gay people being gay and people possessing guns regardless of the law. There is no social responsibility to be had in either case since the law will accomplish next to nothing and therefore the debate in itself is anti-intellectual.

How is the debate itself anti-intellectual? Or hostile to intellectual ideas? There are various statistics between guns, violence, and crime. These statistics are facts, and facts are key in intellectual discussion. While it may be true that criminals will get guns, it is still imporant to discuss how to restrict criminals from getting guns. The gun debate is not hostile to intellectual ideas, but rather fosters them.

I say idiocracy is realized because we have societal problems that could easily be addressed, like education reform, medical coverage and social welfare but are being ignored so the powers that be can keep the angry masses divided against each other over non-issues like gun control and gay marriage. We allow them to dictate the context in which we discuss social responsibility and justice rather than using our own intelligence to draw our own conclusions.

The claim that the powers that be keep the angry masses divided against each other is a baseless assertion, and you have not given evidence for such a claim. These problems are not easily adressed because they are hard issues that are still being debated and discussed.

In conclusion, I have negated that Idiocracy is realized, because anti-intellectualism is not realized, neither is a society devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights.
Debate Round No. 2
Flyboy254

Pro

Flyboy254 forfeited this round.
That1User

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. but I would still like to thank Pro for this fun debate.
In conclusion, I have negated that Idiocracy is realized in the previous round, because anti-intellectualism is not realized, neither is a society devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by That1User 1 year ago
That1User
Wow, I am impressed by your rebuttal. I underestimated you, Flyboy, I thought this was going to be an easy noob snipe.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Flyboy254That1UserTied
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.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Flyboy254That1UserTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture