The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
The_Devils_Advocate
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Plethora Version 4

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...
The_Devils_Advocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,167 times Debate No: 5328
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places.

1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights.
2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism.
3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be.
4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged.
5. Agriculture was a mistake.
6. Anarchy could feasibly work.
7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind.
8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate.
9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election.
10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world.
11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot).
12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed.
13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate).
14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

Let's do...numero seis. Anarchy could feasibly work.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, so basically anarchy has worked for over 90% of history. Up until 10000 years ago, there was no government. Every body was simply a member of a small group of hunter gatherers. The hunter gatherers had a fairly egalitarian society, with no leader, so basically, they had anarchy. The reason it worked is because there was almost no competition for resources, as we only had 10000 people. So if we somehow got the population down to 10000 people, anarchy would work fine. While I don't recommend it, it would work. That is undeniable.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed opponent. It is always a pleasure debating you, and I'm sure this time will be no different. I wish you the best of luck, and will begin to argue your points.

Firstly, let me see if I have your premises correctly.
1. Everyone was hunter/gatherers that had no government
2. Worked because there was no competition for resources.
3. Worked because there were few people

Now let's talk about why each premise is wrong and doesn't uphold the resolution.
1. We aren't hunter/gatherers, and wouldn't digress into becoming so. The law of evolution says that things don't devolve. They become more complex not less. This means that now that we have evolved into the complex society that we are today, we won't digress into the hunter/gatherer society. There would always be one person to capitalize somehow and end up in the power position and eliminating the anarchy.

2. There will always be a competition for resources. In modern days, people need a fuel source, and people need food. As long as people need things, then they are going to try and get them. This will lead to a competition in resources, even if it isn't for quantity. People are selfish creatures that want the best. This means that if you and I are each raising cattle, but yours are better than mine, then I want your cattle. This is human nature.

3. There are 6.6 billion people on this earth. Getting the population down to ten thousand is virtually impossible. We have to be realistic when looking at our options. There are some things that just can't happen. Even if it can happen in a hypothetical world, this isn't a hypothetical world. There are limitations that have been placed upon us. The only truly feasible way of eliminating most of the world's population is a nuclear war that destroys virtually everything, which would cause an enormous competition for resources. If anything were to eliminate that many people, there would be a competition for resources.

Now onto some more general arguments. You say there was no leader generally. This is untrue. Often times, there would be a leader, even if it wasn't voted upon. When we look to the native americans, we find that they established leaders among themselves. When we look at the writings of Captain John Smith, the native american's had a social structure and rulers among themselves. They even had different classes. The ancient Aztecs and Mayans each had rulers. The tribes of Africa had rulers, the list is virtually endless. Even with prehistoric man, might made right. Whoever was the strongest, was the ruler.

Even if you don't believe that, there was an order to society. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlesness, wordnet.com, often times these ancient civilizations had a moral law that they lived by. If an individual violated the society in a certain way, then they were outcast by the rest of the people. This isn't anarchy as there is a moral code they lived by.

All of these are reasons that anarchy wouldn't work now. It's just not feasible. Thank you, and I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"1. We aren't hunter/gatherers, and wouldn't digress into becoming so. The law of evolution says that things don't devolve. They become more complex not less. This means that now that we have evolved into the complex society that we are today, we won't digress into the hunter/gatherer society. There would always be one person to capitalize somehow and end up in the power position and eliminating the anarchy."

Actually, it happens all the time with civilizations. The Sioux Indians, once a tribe of small-scale farmers, returned to hunting and gathering when they found feral horses which made hunting and gathering much more preferable. Also the Mayans, at one point, went from a state society into a society based around tribes of rural farmers.

"2. There will always be a competition for resources. In modern days, people need a fuel source, and people need food. As long as people need things, then they are going to try and get them. This will lead to a competition in resources, even if it isn't for quantity. People are selfish creatures that want the best. This means that if you and I are each raising cattle, but yours are better than mine, then I want your cattle. This is human nature."

If my cattle are in Europe, and yours in in New York, you can't get my cattle. That's the benefit of having only 10000 people, we're all so spread out, we don't need to fight. My family and I are with my cows in Europe, your family is with you and your cows in New York.

"3. There are 6.6 billion people on this earth. Getting the population down to ten thousand is virtually impossible. We have to be realistic when looking at our options. There are some things that just can't happen. Even if it can happen in a hypothetical world, this isn't a hypothetical world. There are limitations that have been placed upon us. The only truly feasible way of eliminating most of the world's population is a nuclear war that destroys virtually everything, which would cause an enormous competition for resources. If anything were to eliminate that many people, there would be a competition for resources."

If everyone has just one kid, our population will rapidly decrease. UNESCO estimates say that if we had one kid only, then by 2050, we would have 3 billion people, by 2100, only 1 billion. If we kept doing this, we would eventually get down to ten thousand people, although it may take 1000 years. There are also more gruesome and immoral ways of doing this, but I won't get in to those.

"Now onto some more general arguments. You say there was no leader generally. This is untrue. Often times, there would be a leader, even if it wasn't voted upon. When we look to the native americans, we find that they established leaders among themselves. When we look at the writings of Captain John Smith, the native american's had a social structure and rulers among themselves. They even had different classes. The ancient Aztecs and Mayans each had rulers. The tribes of Africa had rulers, the list is virtually endless. Even with prehistoric man, might made right. Whoever was the strongest, was the ruler."

Native Americans (At least the one's Smith saw) were not hunter gatherers. They were states and chiefdoms, with rulers. Hunter-gatherers live in bands, and have a very egalitarian society. The Mayans and Aztecs lived in very advanced state societies, and obviously needed rulers. The tribes of Africa also were either herders or farmers, not hunter-gatherers. The prehistorical man bit though is just false. They were hunter-gatherers, and used what is called an equalizing mechanism to keep the strong man in the group from getting too much power.

"Even if you don't believe that, there was an order to society. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlesness, wordnet.com, often times these ancient civilizations had a moral law that they lived by. If an individual violated the society in a certain way, then they were outcast by the rest of the people. This isn't anarchy as there is a moral code they lived by."

Anarchy actually means without rule, as that is what the roots mean, an-without, archy-rule. Hunter-gatherers had no ruler, they were egalitarians.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed opponent. I thank you for this wonderful debate, and am eager to get this on the way. With that, I shall begin.

Firstly, the example of the Sioux is not an example of deevolution. In fact, it is an example of evolution. Even thought they reverted to what they did, they became more succesful in doing so. With the addition of horses, they became more succesful in hunting and gathering than they would have been in farming. But before horses farming was better than hunting gathering. So even though they went back to their old ways, they didn't get less complex. Which is what I was talking about in the first place. The same goes for the Mayans. A state society wasn't treating them well. And even though they went to a society of tribes, this doesn't mean they didn't still have a central Mayan society. It was extremely different than just a normal tribe society as we would think about it. They were similar to the greek city-states, in the fact that while they were their own entity per se, they still had a unifying quality or society about them. So this would be seen as an evolution, or becoming more complex. Just like America is more complex with having states, than just being a country without any divisions or boundaries within our boundary. Now let me revert this back to the debate. The reason this is important, is because right now, the world is a complex infrastructure of competing governments, and warring civilizations. With the introduction of a world economy, and a world community, things don't backtrack into an anarchy. The reason for this is quite simple. The world is completely complex right now, and anarchy, although empirically proven, just wouldn't work in this complex world. People know structure and complexity, people feel safe with structure and complexity, and people want structure and complexity. Without it, they will inevitably create their own, therefore eliminating anarchy.

The thing with this debate, is that you are advocating anarchy on an extremely small scale population wise. This doesn't mean our technology has been lost. I can easily get from europe to australia, to asia, to south america to north america, and even antarctica if your heart desired it, all in a day or two. The world knows of a global market. America is importing all sorts of things every day, and this would still continue. The resources that America has, aren't available in other areas of the world. There are many parts of the world that have very few resources that will sustain them. While they may be rich in resources such as oil, and natural gases, they wouldn't be able to support themselves. This is where trading comes in. If you need gas but don't have it, and I need food but don't have it. We trade and this creates infrastructure. Naturally, humans are animals that desire the best for themselves. So I'm going to try and get ahead of you. Whoever has the power makes the rules. So as soon as someone has more resources, they are allowed to make the rules because everyone needs what they have. This is where anarchy falls. Another argument here, is that sooner or later, the resources are going to run out. Even with a small population.

Another reason this would never work, is the population problem. Even if we were to only have one child for the next thousand years, and eventually get down to 10,000 people, this doesn't solve for what happens after we reach this population. People are then going to continue reproducing, and repopulate the earth. This would lead to a very similar earth to the one we have today. Not only that, but children also could help someone get ahead. When choosing who to side with in an argument over land or whatever, the children are naturally going to side with their parents...for the most part. This means that whoever has the biggest family, has a better chance at controlling the others. Once again, anarchy falls.

It's interesting that you say "The mayans and Aztecs lived in very advanced state societies, and obviously needed rulers." The world today is very advanced. People are naturally greedy, and naturally in search of more and more power. With the technological advancements we have today, someone will naturally try and take power. Even if they fail, people will have banded together to stop them, and realize the strength in numbers. Much like the civilian militia of old, people are going to stick together against a common cause, and with those who are like-minded. Infrastructure is a natural side-effect of humans living together. It can't be stopped. Anarchy will always fail especially in a modern world that we have today. It doesn't matter how many people live on this earth.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"Firstly, the example of the Sioux is not an example of deevolution. In fact, it is an example of evolution. Even thought they reverted to what they did, they became more succesful in doing so. With the addition of horses, they became more succesful in hunting and gathering than they would have been in farming. But before horses farming was better than hunting gathering. So even though they went back to their old ways, they didn't get less complex."

HG societies are some of the most complex on earth. The best example is that of an Aborigine band which has a unique social structure. There is a system of moieties, that is, special castes or clans that dictate who you can marry. Someone in moiety X has to marry someone from moiety Y and they can't marry anyone from moiety Z. Also, they have yet another social classification system on top of that, which dictates which moiety you will be in, and who you can even talk to. They are extremely complex. Also your use of the terms evolution and devolution is flawed. Modern anthropology uses a classification of societies as bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states, which is used to eliminate our bias, coming from a state society. HGs are not savage, they are often more civilized than people in state societies.

"The same goes for the Mayans. A state society wasn't treating them well. And even though they went to a society of tribes, this doesn't mean they didn't still have a central Mayan society. It was extremely different than just a normal tribe society as we would think about it. They were similar to the greek city-states, in the fact that while they were their own entity per se, they still had a unifying quality or society about them. So this would be seen as an evolution, or becoming more complex. Just like America is more complex with having states, than just being a country without any divisions or boundaries within our boundary."

Actually, that's false. The Mayans lived in many city states like the Greek city states. Then, wars between the states heated up, and got really scary. Mayan citizens didn't want to die, and they left the cities, and formed small farming communities, similar to a tribe model. This is almost exactly what they had before forming the great Mayan cities. So they did "devolve" as you put it.

"the world is a complex infrastructure of competing governments, and warring civilizations. With the introduction of a world economy, and a world community, things don't backtrack into an anarchy. The reason for this is quite simple. The world is completely complex right now, and anarchy, although empirically proven, just wouldn't work in this complex world. People know structure and complexity, people feel safe with structure and complexity, and people want structure and complexity. Without it, they will inevitably create their own, therefore eliminating anarchy."

Anarchy wouldn't work here? Somalia, an war-ridden nation has no government, the funny thing is, when this happened their quality of life improved http://en.wikipedia.org... But anyways, with ten thousand people, or even less, we will still be complex, heck we can even live in the many abandoned houses, but we don't need it, and if we are raised to be HGs, we won't have the cultural barrier you speak of. Furthermore, I never specified who the 10000 would be. It could simply be all the current HG bands, and then some "civilized" people who wanted the anarchy.

"The thing with this debate, is that you are advocating anarchy on an extremely small scale population wise. This doesn't mean our technology has been lost. I can easily get from europe to australia, to asia, to south america to north america, and even antarctica if your heart desired it, all in a day or two. The world knows of a global market. America is importing all sorts of things every day, and this would still continue. The resources that America has, aren't available in other areas of the world. There are many parts of the world that have very few resources that will sustain them. While they may be rich in resources such as oil, and natural gases, they wouldn't be able to support themselves. This is where trading comes in. If you need gas but don't have it, and I need food but don't have it. We trade and this creates infrastructure. Naturally, humans are animals that desire the best for themselves. So I'm going to try and get ahead of you. Whoever has the power makes the rules. So as soon as someone has more resources, they are allowed to make the rules because everyone needs what they have. This is where anarchy falls. Another argument here, is that sooner or later, the resources are going to run out. Even with a small population."

The only resources you need are food, and shelter, which we can easily get from the environment. Also, resources will not run out because the consumption is so small, and the production is rapid. For example, since 1990, 1 billion deer have been shot or hit by cars in my state. Deer are still numerous, and have higher populations than in 1990.

"Another reason this would never work, is the population problem. Even if we were to only have one child for the next thousand years, and eventually get down to 10,000 people, this doesn't solve for what happens after we reach this population. People are then going to continue reproducing, and repopulate the earth. This would lead to a very similar earth to the one we have today. Not only that, but children also could help someone get ahead. When choosing who to side with in an argument over land or whatever, the children are naturally going to side with their parents...for the most part. This means that whoever has the biggest family, has a better chance at controlling the others. Once again, anarchy falls."

Hunter gatherers maintained a society of 10000 for 60000 years. They did it, so can we. The thing is, HGs cannot have too many children, because they can only carry one or two infants. Second many children die of disease. We'll do fine.

"he world today is very advanced. People are naturally greedy, and naturally in search of more and more power. With the technological advancements we have today, someone will naturally try and take power. Even if they fail, people will have banded together to stop them, and realize the strength in numbers. Much like the civilian militia of old, people are going to stick together against a common cause, and with those who are like-minded. Infrastructure is a natural side-effect of humans living together. It can't be stopped. Anarchy will always fail especially in a modern world that we have today. It doesn't matter how many people live on this earth."

The last statement is completely false. If I am the only person left on earth I don't need government. But anyways, government is only needed to run cities of many people. Bands of small numbers can be run without any formal government. People existed like that again for 60000 years. Also, even though we have advanced technology, this does not change anything. It only makes hunting easier, and the HG life more desirable.
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

The_Devils_Advocate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
No big deal.
Posted by The_Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
I am truly truly truly sorry about missing my last round. I have been extremely busy, and lost track of time. Truly, I'm sorry.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
I'm an animal lover and would contend that many non-human animals do, or at least should, have rights.

However, most non-human animals are plankton, microbes and parasites and it would be difficult to argue that a doctor removing a tapeworm from a child's intestines, thus killing the animal, should face prosecution!

That said, a farmer that causes unnecessary pain and suffering to his livestock should be punished.

Perhaps if the title of the debate topic was less ambiguous?
Posted by aaronr8684 9 years ago
aaronr8684
Looks like someone is debate hungry
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVAThe_Devils_AdvocateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10