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

It is possible for humanity to achieve a utopian society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,154 times Debate No: 5872
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Ok well I have wanted to debate this topic for a bit so i figured I'd just put it out there. And I would like to thank anyone who wishes to a part of this debate, by commenting, voting, etc.

If you wish to participate in this debate you must believe a utopian society is not possible to acheive. This is NOT a L-D style debate.

The first round will just be a prelim. round. After someone accepts I ask them to just post definitions in there first round and let us proceed to the debate. Thank you.

Humanity- the entire span of humans in the world.
Utopian- a moral and righteous society; a perfect society.
Achieve- being able to obtain through work and/or effort


I affirm that it is not possible to achieve a utopian society.

I accept all definitions provided.

As per request I will await R2 to provide an argument. I very much look forward to debating this very interesting and original topic.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank JBlake for accepting this challenge, and look forward to our debate.

First I would like to state that achieving a Utopian society is possible, yet highly unlikely. This is due to the proverbial "strings attached" to the word utopia. A utopia can be achieved in theory if we specify our "requirements" to two different groups.
(1) The people - Of course to obtain a Utopian society, means you must have the perfect citizens to be integrated. Since I broaden the term of people to humanity I am presenting myself with a challenge. It is possible for a small group of people to live together in perfect harmony, but can it be the same when we ask for all the small groups of the world to come together? Again, in theory it is possible. People though are not that simple, we all have different needs and wants. A Utopian society can be achieved, as defined, through work and effort. In theory if all people were to find lovers, entertainment, and of course social interaction we will be pacified. These are the basic human longings that we all strive for. Now being responsible for all the different ethnic, religious, and political groups can be similarly broken down to accept a Utopian society. And acceptance is the first step toward achievement, thus setting the groundwork down to pave the road to perfection.

(2) The government - Now perhaps the easiest part of achieving a Utopian society is to get the world to agree on a common government. This is easy because there is one government in specific that adheres to a perfect society, and that is the only government that could possibly be used to rule one - Socialism. Socialism is defined as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This being accepted the government of a Utopian society would be socialist, distributing land evenly, along with food, clothes, and other natural resources.

Now when we merge these two things together, the people and the government, we create a society that can indeed be perfect. It is matter of trying to achieve perfection that will allow us to be able to reach a utopia. A Utopian society may not be achieved in my lifetime, but I believe the world is taking positive steps along the road of perfection. A Utopian society has been broached before, and with enough persistence I believe that as a people, humanity can one day be able to create an ideal society.

Thank you for reading.


I would like to thank my opponent for his quick response.


1. If all people were sufficiently distracted with lovers, entertainment, and social interaction.
2. Get the world to agree on a common government.
3. Socialism is the perfect form of government for this common world government.


1. The problem with this is that what many people want is perfectly at odds with what other people want. Take lovers for instance. There will always be quarells over lovers as two or more people may become interested in the same target. This target may even become interested in two or more of those vying for affection.

The other major problem with this is that it assumes there is one answer for everyone on each of the aforementioned topics. People come in so many different shapes and sizes that one answer could not possible be the correct answer for all people. Take lovers again for instance. Some will fall in love with someone of the same sex, or any number of other objects of potential affection that many people find inappropriate. Those finding it inapropriate will limit the person's ability to achieve his/her object, resulting in a form of oppression. This is equally true for entertainment, as some find entertainment where others find disgust.

2. I admit that this may be slightly more likely to occur than the former claim, but not by much. Even if this were to occur, problems would still arise. Regions would still find disagreement with other regions over something (funding, access to resources, more control over their own existence).

It would be a very formidable task to convince all nations, regions, and ethnicities to peacefully coexist under one world government. You must convince all nations to denounce their sovereignty - a nearly impossible task to begin with since people are not inclined to willingly give up power.

In attempting this, the most likely outcome would be a few large confederations attempting to force the other confederations to join their own.

3. The question that would arise in such a government is who is to control the vast array of resources implied by a worldwide government. If it is controlled by Russians, Ukrainians may get the short end, if by christians, non-christians may have to do with less. If it is a conglomeration of interests, one interest is bound to win out through political manuevering since it is human nature to seek improvement of station. Ultimately one person or one interest group will gain more power than the others, resulting in oppression or inequality for some other groups. This is not a utopia.

Humans have many different and often competing interests that make giving everyone what they want impossible.
It would be a long, violent road to convince all sovereign nations to give up their sovereignty to join one World Government.
Socialism as the One World Government would result in inequality for some interest groups.

My opponent has specified that he wishes to create a worldwide utopia and not a smaller, isolated Utopia. Because of the immense difficulties present in human nature, this is utterly impossible.

For these reasons, it is impossible to achieve a perfect Utopia in reality.
Debate Round No. 2


First off I would like to address my opponents last statement "... it is impossible to achieve a perfect Utopia in reality.". I would like to state that all my opinions and charges to a Utopian society are based oh philosophy and theory. Now that the audience knows this I would like to start my rebuttals.

My opponents first contention was that what people may want is at odds with what other people want. Really this can be easily avoided. People are not very complex if we identify the key points that drive us to do what we do. First many people do the things they do for social acceptance. This driving point will not be needed to achieve a Utopian, since all people will be treated equal regardless of race, religion, or social class. Another driving point is economic validation. Many people try as hard as possible to make more money then the next. This is also important to a Utopian society, but under the values of Socialism we will all share economic gain and growth.

I also think alot can be said about the "acceptance factor" going into achieving a Utopian society. This can be integrated into government and people. The world is changing and becoming more accepting to new cultures and new ideas. One major show of this is the voting of presidential elect Barack Obama. A man becoming the United States first African-American President is a prime example of how the world is growing more tolerant of new cultures and new ideas, and even integrating them into politics. This will play a major part in achieving a utopia because as I said, we are growing more tolerant.

"You must convince all nations to denounce their sovereignty - a nearly impossible task to begin with since people are not inclined to willingly give up power." This is a great point, but one with a simple answer. Power is subject to nature. While some may say power is having anything you want whenever you want, others may say it is having militant prowess far beyond any others, and even others may say it is having more money and respect amongst the community. We must be inclined to accept the nature of each human, as it is the only way of achieving utopia. Of course there would be fights, but the outcome would be something worth fighting for. Like the brave Colonial Americans who fought against England in the Revolutionary War, the world must be willing to fight for what is truly right.

"The question that would arise in such a government is who is to control the vast array of resources implied by a worldwide government." Another good point, but I believe my opponent has overlooked one key factor - globalization. Globalization is the increase in cultural, political, and religious integration between countries. With globalization on such a vast rise I highly doubt we would have countries holding status effect over another's head. With outsourcing on the rise and trade barriers literally melting away, the world has never seen a more global age. This is another key factor that will go into achieving a Utopian society. With all this globalization, when a utopia starts to be created some differences will start to be forgotten, others may be worked out in agreements and others my need a more mundane approach. Perfection comes at a cost, but it is always worth it.

This has been my 2nd round of AFF. I thank you for reading and good luck to JBlake on the 3rd and final round.


Thank you for your quick response once again. In an attempt to avoid finishing my term paper I will respond now.

I will quickly note that my opponent has attempted to change his resolution from:
It is possible to achieve a Utopian society.

It is theoretically possible to achieve a Utopian society.

It is evident that he meant to argue in the realm of reality by his definition in his R1 for achieve, having defined it as such:
"Achieve- being able to obtain through work and/or effort"

Notice he did not say 'being able to consider the possibility of'. Anything is theoretically possible. It is theoretically possible for a Flying Spaghetti Monster to rule over the universe, but that does not make it a fact in reality. At this late stage of the debate I will not allow this change and will continue the argument as it was originally drawn up.

1. People are not very complex and can thus be easily pacified.
2. Social acceptance will cease to be a factor for people because all people will be treated equally.
3. Economic validation will cease to be a factor because everyone shares in economic growth.
4. Electing Barack Obama shows the world is becoming more accepting.
5. The violence and destruction will be worth the potential for Utopia.
6. Globalization shows that the world can get along on an equal footing, and can be a tool in achieving this Utopia.


1. This is clearly not the case. People are very complex beings and cannot be broken down to just a few simple pacification and distraction techniques. As I mentioned earlier, and that my opponent failed to refute, is that what some people want is fundamentally at odds with what other people want. The creation of a socialist utopia, for instance, is fundamentally at odds with the creation of a capitalist, free market utopia. Some people want to marry someone of the same gender, while others want the whole world to believe that this is wrong and should not be allowed. Some people want the ability to have the choice for abortion, others vehemently deny that anyone should have that ability.

The point here is that people cannot be easily pacified, and that such a policy by the government constitutes a form of oppression because in giving some things to one group, they are taking something from another. This policy can also have many adverse effects, remember the old Roman adage "Give them bread and circus and they will never revolt." The problem arises when a government becomes corrupt or oppressive no one will stop them because the masses are just comfortable enough to remain complacent while they watch their civil rights disappear.

2. My opponent has not shown how he plans to forget the past several hundreds of years in which the very opposite has occurred and make everyone get along. Human nature ensures that interest groups will form that will be in opposition to other interest groups.

a) At the world level, many times those interest groups will be comprised of a single race, leading to racial discrimination by one group against another.
b) Religions will always be at odds, since a key part of religion is the fact that they believe they have the correct answer and everyone else has it wrong. This will make equality even more unlikely if one religion obtains more power than another.
c) Social class is especially evident in a socialist society. The most obvious division here is between the ruling class and the rest. More class issues will inevitably arise when people realize they are contributing more to society than others, while still receiving the same amount of benefits - a doctor saving lives receives the same benefits as the McDonald's employee flipping burgers. This will create tension between such groups, not to mention decrease overall output of society.

3. See responce 2c.

Additionally, in socialist societies generally result in the development of black markets. This results in some having more than others - a result of people's desire to have more than others.

4. My opponent clearly has a strictly western education and point of view. Black leaders and heads of state have existed numerous times in the past in other nations. The same applies to women leaders and heads of state. This shows that black and women leaders have been accepted in the past. The world is not becoming more accepting, U.S. culture is. The election of Sen. Obama is not indicative of a worldwide movement toward acceptance and toleration, but a western reluctance.

5. a) Modern technology as it is, it is difficult to believe that such a massive and prolonged world war would not result in the use of nuclear weapons. As nations are torn down through violence and force, nuclear weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of irresponsible people willing to use them. Early use would likely be followed by more and more use, resulting in much death and destruction.

b) If nukes were not used, and large coalitions were successfull, these new large nations would have to oppress smaller nations and their citizenry to force them into the 'new world order'. Hardly a fanciful beginning to a perfect Utopia, wouldn't you say?

6. Globalization shows precisely the opposite of what my opponent suggests. He supposes that globalization could be an important tool to reach his global utopia. Unfortunately, one of the elements of globalization (and its key motivating factor) is inequality. Companies can earn much more money by paying its workers overseas much less than the same laborer in North Carolina. Globalization is built on inequality and exploitation. This would not be a good starting point for a global Utopia in which all people are equal and share in the benefits.

My opponent has argued that people are easily pacified with 'bread and circus', a key element to achieving a Global Utopia. Such deception makes it much more likely that a government will become corrupt and oppressive - and that no one will stop them.
He admits that nations would not willingly join such a movement. He also claims that the potential for Global Utopia is worth the required violence and destruction. This could be reworded to say 'Oppression and forced annexation is worth a potential creation of an oppression-free world government." Clearly the ends do not justify the means, especially since the ends are not guarunteed.
He does not address the fact that some interest groups would inevitably have more power than others, resulting in inequality.

Since my opponent has either not responded to my points, or responded ineffectively, I hope that you would vote Con.

I would like to conclude by thanking Pro for a very interesting debate. I see that you are almost brand new to the community, so I would like to extend a warm welcome.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I, personally, like the idea of a utopia, but is it possible? We are after all animals, and our primal insticnt is to one way or another get ahead of others. A powerful leader like Hitler or Lenin could destroy this, unless a heavily suppressed education system was made. But, overall, i like the sound of it.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
Interesting debate. I commend Pro for setting forth a very compelling idea of how utopia might be achieved, especially with regards to Socialism meeting that end. However, I vote for Con for most convincing argument. Con rebutted all of Pro's points while some of Con's arguments remained unchallenged. I also gave the Conduct vote to Con because Pro adjust the resolution slightly, moving it from the realm of practical to the realm of theoretical. Spelling and Grammar and Sources were a tie.
Posted by Mr.Alex 7 years ago
Yes indeed, I enjoyed this debate alot....but perhaps waiting for a "rematch" would be best. I'm getting tests every week and I'm up to my ears in work. Thank you again for the debate.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
No problem. I'm really busy with school and probably shouldn't have taken the debate to begin with, but I couldn't help it. Thanks for the debate, perhaps we could do it again sometime.
Posted by Mr.Alex 7 years ago
Sorry if I'm going a little fast JBlake, but I'm going away this weekend so I'm trying to finish my debates by then.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04