The Instigator
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
mmadderom
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

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: 1/13/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,641 times Debate No: 1748
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (17)

 

FalseReality

Pro

Ipods/Movies= better story telling/musical ceremonies/entertainment
Steak= better food
Skyscrappers= better "under the tree"
Cars/Planes= better walking
money= better trading
religion= better science/law
pictures= better history passing
College= better learning
Abercrombie and Fitch= better animal skin clothes
phones= better talking

My point being is this: Everything we have now is only an improvment on things that our ancestors made up back when we we're not the dominant predator and were first starting to evolve from ape to man. We've only made improvments on concepts that were already there. The 10 examples I have up there are only a few that I can think of now. When ever we think of something "new" it is only "building a better something".

1)Movies/ipods- back in "the caveman days" it is probable that they had religous rituals and celbrations (both entertainment at the time). This has so evolved into movies and music. Now, rather than join together for a live performance (which we still do sometimes with theatre, but anyway) for all entertainment, we can carry it with us

2)steak- this is a generalization on all the foods we have now. Back in the old times, people had to hunt for wild game or gather the fruits/veggies that grew wildly. The concepts of containig game, or livestock, and farming, are only better hunter/gatherer techniques.

3)Skyscrappers - what we live in is only a better protection from weather. When we didn't know any better, we as animals just took it, or maybe found cover under a tree. Since then we found caves and then made houses. Again, only imrovements.

4)Cars and planes - most of us have legs, so we could move. Then we road on horses or other animals, then made cars, and then airplanes. Transportation is something we already had, but made it better.

5)Money - back when we had closly nit groups, we all had to look out for each other and shared things. Then somehow, we stopped and started claiming possessions. Sometimes we liked what others had and traded. Then money came around, and rather than trade 100 bones for a heavy shiney rock (both inconveniences to have around with you) we made money.

6)Religion - When it rained, people wanted to know why. So a "rain god" came around and there was the answer. Then people wanted to know where the sun went, so the "sun god" was born. Things that eventually branched off to being todays dieties. Then science came about and started doing all the things that the mystical gods did. A better explaination.

7)Pictures - We know we have a history, and so it was in ancient times. We could tell our family stories so far back, and then forgot. So then we made painings to remember it better, which grew into the Kodak moments we have today, preserving all those moments we want to remember.

8)College - when you feel pain, you don't like it, life lesson 1. When you eat something, your not hungry anymore. Basic things people learned back then. The lessons go on and one and then grow and grow. Parents couldn't teach their kids everything that needs to be learned so school was made. More knowledge meant more school. Knowledge became more complex as time went on, so then college was made. A better teaching.

9)Clothes - We really started developing at a bad time. We didn't have much hair, and it was getting much colder. As we killed prey, we found that their fur that we didn't have could keep us warm. We got used to wearing them, to the point where clothes became mandatory. Then it went from need-to-have to need-to-have-but-why-not-look-good-too?. American Eagle is the better fur pelt.

10)Phones - we all talk somehow (save for mutes). First we had grunting, then talking, then yelling, then signals, all the way to phones and the internet. Communication made better.

To my opponent: (it seems I have to do this) YOUR GOAL IS TO PROVE THAT MAN HAS MADE AN ORIGONAL INVENTION THAT HAS NO RELATION TO SOMETHING WE DID NOT ALREADY HAVE AS A PRIMAL SPECIES. I DO NOT want this to be a battle of technicalities and "he said this, he said that". If you accept this than you will argue on the main point, not a simple error. What I have up there are only examples and not limits. This is 4 ROUNDS so that we can go back and forth on the inventions that you think man has created out of the blue that is not just an improvment on something that we already had in some way.
mmadderom

Con

There have, of course, been many hundreds of thousands of first of their kind inventions. And, of course, you will simply call each an "improvement" over something that already existed. But here goes:

Golf Clubs
Football
Baseball
Tennis Racket

Just this short list of items were original products that didn't replace anything. All are recreational/sporting goods items that had no predecessor because the activities associated with them didn't exist prior to their invention.

How about medical things like:

Breast implants
Artificial Hips
pace makers

What were their predecessors?

Children's toys?

Rubiks cube
Silly Putty
Hula Hoop
Slinky
Pogo stick
Roller Skates

You would be hard pressed to claim any, let alone all, of these things on my meager list can be related back to something we already had as a "primal species" whatever that means.
Debate Round No. 1
FalseReality

Pro

Oh my friend, it is not hard at all to connect these objects.
Your first set of devices I will clump into: sports gear. Well, this is easy. As you know, males primarily like sports. Why? Because males are the competative sex, what with testoserone and hormones and what not. Back in the day, we had our competitions, many times breaking off into wars of some kind. Fights of physical prowess would be fought to impress females.The victor got the girl. It continues on until people get tired of fighting and killing and just want to live, so they make sports. Wrestling on of the earliest, then racing, then they started throwing rocks farther than each other, then made tools to throw those things farther and so on. Evolution of sports.

Medicinal advances. I'll explain each in turn. Breast implants. We all have breasts, its only womens whom is better reveared. Lets look at history. We all started out naked. No one cared about naked bodies. Then it became cold, thus came clothes. You don't see things long enough and you start to miss it. Thus began our sexual desire for "private parts". We already had breasts, now we want them more. We imagine them to be something on the edge of holiness. So we better them with implants. Just a betterment, not something origonal.

Hips and pacemnakers. Both actual, practical medical inventions. So they are under the "medicine" category. We've always had sickness. In the beginning, there was no method to deal with heart attacks, or broken bones, and bad hips. Then we find out broken bones heal evetually, and if you press on the victims chest they may recover from cardiac arrest (CPR). Once we discover that, we make casts, then heart transplants. Then we made artificial hips and pacemakers. We already had hips, and hearts, we just found something better. Again, only improvments.

TOYS! WHo doesn't like a good toy now and then. SO how is it that we got rubiks cubes and pogo sticks? As infants, every young mammal plays with something. As apes, we could have played with grass, pebbles, or bugs, and each other. Then we sculpted the first toy, from either rock or tusk. It only took time and happy accidents to discover that putting wheels on shoes was fun, and wound up metal walked down stairs. We had play already, we just made it more fun. Bettered it. Nothing really special, but it is enjoyable none the less.

All it takes is the want to better something and we do. Running made people strong, so we come up with a better running you can do in the house: treadmills. We have always killed, so we make it better: guns. We always had a social order, but we grew more numerous, so it had to get bigger: government. We don't think of new things, we think of better things.

What else do you have for me?
mmadderom

Con

Very nice argument. The problem is it completely sidesteps the issue at hand, which is: "Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn."

Sports gear - Absolutely competition has been around since the dawn of man, for all of the reasons you mentioned and more. However, competition itself didn't evolve into Baseball, Golf, Tennis, Football, etc all by itself. Each one of those games had an inventor with an original concept and original equipment. Nobody found a baseball or set of golf clubs lying around then started playing a game with them. Each game had to first be envisioned, then equipment invented to play the game.

Medical advances - Yes, we all have breasts. That anatomical fact doesn't logically equate to artificial enhancement being an unoriginal invention. There is nothing natural about implants, hence they are an original invention.

Hips and pacemakers - along with a ton of other medical advances and inventions are certainly original inventions. Necessity being the mother in invention ingenious people have studied a myriad of ailments and invented solutions. That an ailment exists does not make the invention of a product to address said ailment any less of an original invention.

Toys - Again, the act of play doesn't invent the instruments of it out of thin air.

You are confusing invention itself with the reasons for invention. Absolutely the purpose of invention is to better our lives in some way, that doesn't make them unoriginal in the least. Invention is the act of taking an idea and turning it into a practical (or enjoyable) use. Simply wanting to better something isn't invention, it's the reason for invention.

I contend that all inventions are original.
Debate Round No. 2
FalseReality

Pro

Wikipedias definition of original is:
Originality is the aspect of created or invented works as being new or novel, and thus can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works.

A word we need to pay particular attention to: derivative. Which comes from derive which means to develope or evolve. These definitions mean that something bettered itself from something else. This means that if anything can be found to have been developed from a precedant, it is not original, only a betterment. I found a way that everything can be traced back to an original something.

Sports gear and events are only an improvment on our natural competative traits. We have always had an urge for competition, and any sport has only been worked off of that concept, or derived.

Breast implants are only a betterment of breast, which as you conceded we all have, and thus they are developed from a pre existing trait on our bodies.

All bodies heal, and medicine was developed to better that healing, and artifical limbs are no exception. Technically, it would be possible to allow our bodies to heal on their own, heart/hip failure or not. But we made medicine, a derivative of the concept of healing. Helpful, but not a new idea. ANy medicinal advance was thought because something already existed. Flu vaccines came from the want to heal the flu. The vaccine was only a derivative.

Toys were all developed off the concept of play, something every human could do without rubiks cubes or video games. Those where only made after the preexisting idea of play. Not a new idea, only better ones.

The definition of an invention (again, wiki) is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. An invention may sometimes be based on earlier developments, collaborations or ideas, and the process of invention requires at least the awareness that an existing concept or method can be modified or transformed into an invention.

Nothing has had any novelty (or newness) because everything came from something that already existed.

Again, I ask, give me every single item you think could have any possible oriinality to it, even if it uses up all 10,000 characters.
mmadderom

Con

OK, you are making arguments of semantics based on a wiki definition of the word original and then a definition of the word derivative based on the wiki article?

The dictionary.com definition of the word original that most closely associates to invention:

"8. an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to any copy or imitation"

In order to obtain a patent, trade mark, or copy write for an invention it, by definition, has to be an original idea as opposed to a copy or imitation of a current product or idea.

But even using your definition any useless invention would fit. For example, Andrew Jackson Jr. patented his invention for "Chicken eye protectors". Pasquale Nigro patented his invention for a "fire escape" that consisted of wing looking devices one would attach to their arms before jumping out of a building. These inventions are certainly original because they serve no practical purpose. Conceptually they may have been planned to be useful, but their very failure to serve the intended purpose makes them original inventions based on your stated view of such.

Staying along the same lines and in keeping with your version of what constitutes an original invention, anything that was invented to serve one purpose but turned out to actually serve something entirely different would qualify. IOW, accidental invention. Viagra would be a good example of such. Viagra was invented to treat angina and was a complete failure, however you are probably aware of the side effects it causes so it was marketed as a treatment for erectile dysfunction instead of it's intended purpose. It may not have been invented for original purposes per your definition, but it's use certainly turned out to be original.
Debate Round No. 3
FalseReality

Pro

FalseReality forfeited this round.
mmadderom

Con

Well, not much left to say here with no rebuttal from my opponent. If no invention is original, you'd better shut down patent offices around the world as they no longer serve any purpose other than to waste tax payer money ;-).
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
But that idea was novel when it was first thought of. They might have existed in nature, but humans thinking that they could actually use it and figure out what it was was a new idea. Objects might not be all that new, but the ideas behind them are. Whether you count those as new inventions is up to you, but I figure they do.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
I apologize for not getting my rebuttal in on time, things got hectic for me.

mindjob, electicity was around before humans harnessed it. You know those things, lightning bolts? All ready existed, and the idea to make it only came from that.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
What about electricity? Understanding the movement of electrons and using that to power civilization cannot be mentioned in the same vein as fire, so I'd really like pro to take a shot at that.
Posted by ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
This debate made me cringe a little. If you can't agree on a definition of originality, then there's no point about debating over what is or is not original. Nor is originality something that simply exists or doesn't; it varies in type and quantity with every object and every new perspective. Because of the extreme manner of your initial statement, FalseReality, I think I'd have to side with mmadderom. Nevertheless, I wasn't particularly impressed with either argument.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Evolution precipitates invention, but doesn't make it any less original, Mattresses.
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
all sports evolved from earlier versions. egyptians played a form of baseball using sticks as bats and stones as balls. i do not know the origins of football, but the game originated from playing catch obviously, as it is the basis of the game.

everything evolves, to claim that every invention is something completely new is claiming that there is no such thing as evolution.
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
Months before we went into to get Saddan Hussein, he offered to step down and run into exile for a sum of money(not near the price of the war). So if was the real reason for entering, we would of given him his money, but know we must still go in and invade
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
I'm sure that was aimed at me. He's one of the "9/11 truther" who believe 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. Government. Why he made that statement in THIS debate is beyond me.
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
Are you refering to me or my opponenet?
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
indeed it was orginally a fictional story board, but the writer upon research discovered the truth and started a documentry. It was not fianced by a conspirator and then produced. I truely can't see how sheeple Americans like you can't see the truth, its very simple and obvious to see if you take the time to research. Open your mind. Maybe in the future you and i will have to debate, or i think one of my friends might want to pwn your closed mind.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by A-ROD 9 years ago
A-ROD
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 kcougar52 9 years ago
kcougar52
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 ellyphant 9 years ago
ellyphant
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
FalseRealitymmadderomTied
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