The Instigator
Mikeee
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
DanT
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

RE:RE Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
DanT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 18436
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Mikeee

Pro

Pro will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 10,000 BCE). Pro will also have to show how humanity would still be-able to survive without the invention and use of agriculture.

Con will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was beneficial and made life (the quality of life) better after the agricultural revolution (10,000 BCE to today) and acceptance and use of agriculture either as whole regions or individual areas. Con will also have to prove that humanity would not have been able to survive entirely or as the dominate species without the invention and use of agriculture.

Terms:
Agriculture: The domestication of plant or species for use and convenes of humans (farming, herding, genetic altering, etc.)
Humanity: all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.

Not a religious debate in anyway

I have already debated this twice and it is a extremely varied subject and for the last two debates I have been mainly addressing three major points, so for this debate I will let Con make the choice of either continuing the broad subject or focusing on one pacific aspect.

First round is for acceptance and to tell what choice only; argument and rebuttals on following rounds

Previous Debates:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
DanT

Con

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, mankind was Hunter Gatherers, and without Agriculture man would have not been able to settle in a single location, the Crow Indians is a perfect example how how hunter gatherers must remain nomadic to survive.
Over the course of this debate I will discuss how Nomadic Hunter Gatherers could never have achieved the same quality of life we have today, and how the competition for food would have been disastrous for a growing population.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikeee

Pro

Con has said that for the focus of this debate, he wants to look at how the quality of life would not be the same, I assume via technological advances, and how there would be too much competition over food due to over population. For the first statement I will discuss how the quality of life could be the same, if not possibly better, and how technological advances would still be as abundant as today.

Today we have all sorts of technology that helps make our lives easier, some of which include; computers, the internet 3 and 4 G, cell phones, televisions, cars, aircraft, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc. If you think of a twenty first century hunter and gather, would they really need all of these things? Having some of these things like a better means of communication and transportation could help, but everything else would be of no use to them. When new things like cell phones, computers, and iPads are advertised, they focus on showing how portable they are and how they can still connect to the internet when they are nowhere near civilization. Technologies that would make life better for a hunter and gather would be things like; better communication, better ways of tracking, better was of hunting, better protection. The Hittites where successful if military conquest because everyone they conquered was using bronze weapons, while they had the advanced technology of iron. Hunter and gathers did not have wars so their battle would be between man and beast. Having a better way of hunting would defiantly benefit a hunter and make the quality of life better for him. In Neolithic times a new advanced technology was the spear, it enable a hunter to attack they dangerous pray while staying at a safer distance. There is evidence that pre-agricultural time peoples where capable of making new technologies that could improve their quality of life, but because their lifestyle started to be pushed out by farming communities, and they lost their way of life over 10,000 years ago, it only makes sense that their technology was nowhere near as good as it is today.

In my previous arguments I have stated that before the invention of agriculture led to things that made the quality of life worse such as wars, desires and epidemics, bad health, social injustice, and racism.

Con stated that hunter and gathers where also on the move, which is partly true, but there are a lot of misunderstandings. Hunter and gathers followed the animals that they hunted. Why did the animals move? The animals that they hunted moved south when it got cold, and north when it go warm, they also moved when there was no food to be had in an area. If hunter and gathers found a place that was abundant with game, they would not hunt for the day and continue on, they would stay there until they could no longer get the food they needed to survive. Hunting and gathering is usually assumed to mean nomadic people, but that is no always the case. An example of this is when humans migrated to Australia and New Zealand. There was an abundance of wild life in Australia, but there was much less in New Zealand. Once the people who migrated to New Zealand where unable to get the food they needed by hunting and gathering, they either left or started to develop agricultural communities. They people of Australia did not develop agriculture because they had no need for it.

In conclusion, hunters and gathers had the same quality of life, and most of the time better, than they people who turned to agriculture.
DanT

Con

My opponent seems to be overestimating the capability of technology. He states that we would still have computers and phones, because they are mobile, and hunter gathers are mobile; he does not state why they are mobile. It is pretty damn hard to place a satellite in the sky, without the base to lunch it. A nomadic community could not launch a satellite into orbit. Even if they could, what about the technology that predated it? The precursor to the laptop was the computer, the first computer took up an entire wall, which would be highly impractical for a nomadic community. The precursor to mobile phone was the stationary telephone, which needed land lines, the same way it's precursor the telegraph needed land lines.
Technology advancements would have been highly limited to what yo can take with you through seasonal changes. Hunter gatherers never stayed in a place for more than two weeks. If you are working on inventing something it has to be small enough to take with you very 2 weeks or less.

My opponent claims Agriculture caused wars, desires and epidemics, bad health, social injustice, and racism; his claims are all false.

Wars was present in Hunter Gatherer communities, such as the Crow Indians of the American Plains. Like the Crow Indians, one tribe would go to war with another tribe over hunting territory. Our ancestors often warred with evolutionary cousins over hunting grounds, which many scientist believe is the reason for Homo Neanderthal's extinction; we was smarter and wiped out the competition with superior weapons.

Desire, or envy has been proven to be a evolutionary trait in all primates. A study on our closest living evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees has proven, that envy is a survival mechanism. The study started by giving one chimp a banana, and then giving the other a banana; both was happy. The study than gave one chimp a banana, and the other a grape, the one with the banana refused to eat, an threw away the banana in protest. The reason for envy is that if one primate comes back with a handful of berries, and another comes back with two handfuls of berries, the one with the handful of berries, would try harder to get more berries.

Epidemics are not limited to agricultural societies, in fact epidemics is much easier to spreed when traveling, and much easier to be infected by new diseases you have not yet built up an immunity too. One of the theories of why the Dinosaurs went extinct was that they traveled too much, and got sick from parasites, and diseases they was not immune to. Kind of like the ending to the War of the Worlds, "From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and drank, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth. By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither do men live nor die in vain."

You say Agricultural communities have bad health, but I beg to differ, malnutrition was a major problem with hunter gatherers, and we can still see it in modern hunter gatherer communities. Lack of food leads to two things, malnutrition, and war. On top of the unreliable food source, they also needed more food, because they was nomadic, and had to track and search for all their food, meaning they required more calories, and more nutrients. Also as stated before, nomadic people are more prone to new illnesses. The Black Plague which killed most of the Earth's population was caused and spreed by germ infested rats hitching a ride with merchants traveling from continent to continent, it was not caused by farmers. One of Modern society' biggest problems regarding epidemics is the fact it is easier to travel; it is easier to bring new illnesses into a continent, and it is easier to spreed a virus.

You claim there was no social injustice, or racism among hunter gatherers, but that was because they was segregated by tribes, which competed for food, and they all shared the burden of society. Because of the equal burden in society, when someone broke a law, laws was much harsher, and usually meant death, or exile; being exiled was worse than being executed, and was it's self a death sentence. You also need to remember slavery of enemy tribes was practiced in hunter gatherer societies, the Crow Indians would enslave and even rape women of warring tribes, or white settlers.

Today we enjoy the ability to live anywhere we want, we have a plethora of luxuries, made possible by permanent settlements, and we enjoy a rich healthy lifestyle, made possible by the agricultural community, and the safety of a familiar environment.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikeee

Pro

I am not underestimating the power of technology, I understand that hunter and gathers of 10,000 where not capable of launching satellites. The question isn't what technology they had, but what technology they needed. Why did we start launching satellites? The first satellite was launched into orbit during the cold war. If you look at cell phones, they would be very impractical for a hunter or gather, they would have to be constantly recharged and most are not durable or waterproof. What I am saying is that technology is created for convince we do not need electricity and running water to survive, but it helps. If you and I were told to solve a problem we would probably have different ideas and answers. Hunter and gathers would develop technology that made sense to them, things like genetic engineering and indoor plumbing would be of no use to them. Con also states that technological advancements would occur less because of constant movement and seasonal changes, which I find to be false. Experiencing problems is how they are solved. If the US never had to deal with illegal drug use, there would never be laws about it. People who live in dry areas, like the desert, don't invent waterproof. If I'm a hunter and prey runs away from me because I'm too visible, I invent camouflage. Before hunter and gathers invent satellites to launch into the sky, they would take care of more important things first, like better protection from the elements. Con also mentioned how technological advancements occurred less because of constant movement which is also less true for two reasons. Constant movement means more interactions with other people, cultural diffusion of ideas and technologies, most civilizations did not know about iron until they were destroyed by their enemies whom possessed it. The reason why the Bantu peoples of Africa where able to spread out and migrate further, was because they had iron to clear the land, before they used weaker tools, and once they discovered iron, their migration quickened. Technology was developed on the go, but not all hunter and gathers where on the go, they were not all nomadic like con states. Some tribes stayed in one jungle or forest for generations, hunter and gathers only moved when they had to, if there was no food to be had, they left.

Con disproves my claims of a warless time before agriculture with his Crow Indian (Native American) example. His example is valid, but there are important detail to why there where wars. The Crow Indians fought other tribes and the white settlers because of competition due to them being pushed away by the settlers and other tribes, they did not fight each other because one was richer or had different religious or political ideas, they only reason they fought was because of primal needs. Before white settlers arrived in the new world, Indians did not have wars. Cons points about racism and social justice have to do with this. During WWII the US hated the Japanese because they were at war, it only make sense.
"Desire, or envy has been proven to be a evolutionary trait in all primates. A study on our closest living evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees has proven, that envy is a survival mechanism. The study started by giving one chimp a banana, and then giving the other a banana; both was happy. The study than gave one chimp a banana, and the other a grape, the one with the banana refused to eat, an threw away the banana in protest. The reason for envy is that if one primate comes back with a handful of berries, and another comes back with two handfuls of berries, the one with the handful of berries, would try harder to get more berries." If envy if a primal instinct then I guess we would still have it regardless of our lifestyle, what is relevant is how we would deal with our envy, there is more than a few grapes in the world.

If disease if spread due to travel then it would occur more in post agricultural times. Caravans had a reason to go back and forth, nomadic hunter and gathers only moved because the animals did. In modern time, we can fly around the world in about a day; it took thousands of years for hunter and gathers to travel across the world. If you know anything about the Black Death, it is that the flies on rats carried the desires. The reason humans where exposed to it was because of the development of cities and communities, rat and mice have become more or less "domesticated", because they can survive off of human waste. Cities where not super sterile back in the day and rodents where everywhere, thus causing everyone in the city to be exposed to it, which is why so many people died from it. Native Americans died so easily to small pox because of the exposer to the European dieses, what took their ancestors thousands of years to do, the settlers did in a matter of months, cross the Atlantic Ocean. When you climb mountains, like Mt. Everest, you have to spend time at check points, so that you can allow your body to adapt to the thinner air.

I have no new point to address for this round, for round four, I will address Cons issue with overpopulation and inclined competition.
DanT

Con

I said "overestimating", that aside my opponent makes the claim that constant moving helps develop technology, through association, but fails to recognize my underling point, that archeologists found that Hunter gatherers never stayed in a place for more than two weeks, thus they are limited in technological advancements. One cannot invent a car when one is moving very 2 weeks.

My opponent claims there was no War among the crow before the white man; that is false, the crow warred with each other before the white man. The largest reason for war among the crow prior to the white man was competition for game. If you are tracking a herd of Buffalo, than some other tribe spots the same herd, both tribes will try to kill the herd. Again Early humans warred with Neanderthals over Hunting territory, prior to the Neolithic era.
My opponent claims prior to the settlement of the white Man, Native Americans did not have wars, yet the reason Squanto helped the pilgrims is so that they could form an alliance between the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims, because the Wampanog was weaken by plague and their long time enemies the Narragansetts could take advantage of this to wipe them out.

Prior to the Pilgrims Native Americans did wage war, but it was usually over food, supplies, or tribal feuds, and usually took the form of bloody raids, or ambushes. After the Pilgrims arrived the Native Americans was able to trade for better weapons, such as guns, and metal weapons; prior to the white man's arrive, they used bone and rock based weapons.

My opponent claims proving Envy is natural instinct is irreverent, however it is relevant to show that envy is not solely a product of agriculture, as my opponent has previously claimed.

My opponent claims "If disease if spread due to travel then it would occur more in post agricultural times. Caravans had a reason to go back and forth, nomadic hunter and gathers only moved because the animals did."; this is false.
If you travel every 2 weeks, they are more likely to get sick, than a merchant traveling every other month. Further more, if your food supply depends on being able to travel, getting sick is a death sentence, because it slows you down, and those who are sick need rest.

My opponent claims"Native Americans died so easily to small pox because of the exposer to the European dieses, what took their ancestors thousands of years to do, the settlers did in a matter of months, cross the Atlantic Ocean."
That is exactly my point, change the word Native American to Russian, and change the word small pox to Disease X, and you have the same concept. I stated before that one of the reasons Archeologist believe Neanderthals went extinct was because of war with humans; another explanation archeologist claim is that humans from Africa brought germs they was not immune to and wiped them out through disease. That was before the Neolithic era, and it could have easily been the reverse.

As for over population and competition for food;

Earth's population density is roughly 72.69 per sq mile
In the year 10,000 BC the population density was roughly 0.01 per sq mile.

In other words, in 10,000 BC everyone had 100 miles each to hunt or forage on. Today everyone has 0.01 miles each to hunt or forage on. If we was hunter gathers today we would be in constant war with rival tribes, or we would starve.

In the Paleolithic Era several hominid species existed, only one survived into the Neolithic era, Homo sapiens. That was because they adapted, and the Neolithic Revolution helped humanity survive.

Anthropologists such as Tim White suggest that cannibalism was common in human societies prior to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, based on the large amount of "butchered human" bones found in Lower/Middle Paleolithic sites. Cannibalism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic likely occurred because of food shortages.
Maybe this is just me but I prefer grossery shopping to eating my next door neighbor.

It was the Paleolithic era that developped social stratification, slavery and complex social structures such as chiefdoms; it was not the Neolithic era as my opponent suggested.

It's true that Paleolithic people suffered less malnutrition than the Neolithic era, but if they continued to be hunter gatherers they would have died out through malnutrition. According to professor of geography Carl Sauer, archaeologist Lewis Binford and archaeologist Kent Flannery the reason for the Neolithic revolution in the first place was that the tribes required more food than could be gathered.

My opponent seems focused on the "healthy" diet of the Hunter gatherers, but they ate far too much meat, and consumed too much protein to actually call it "healthy".

Calcium, oxalate and uric acid are excreted more by your body when you eat a high-protein diet, especially when the protein source is animal-based. Reduction of animal products in your diet is recommended by the American Academy of Family Physicians in order to prevent recurring kidney stones.
High consumption of protein can force calcium out of your body, making meat-eating diets more likely to induce bone loss that leads to osteoporosis, according to PCRM.
A meat-based diet may produce as much as double the risk of gallstone production in women, according to PCRM, due to higher cholesterol and fat in the diet.
Eating more Meat helps increase the risk of cancer.
A study conducted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, or PCRM, showed vegetarians to be 40 percent less likely to develop cancer than meat-eaters.
Animal products are the only source of cholesterol and the top source of saturated fat, which is closely linked to heart disease.
Nutritionists have observed that switching to a plant based diet lowers your blood pressure.
A plant-based diet allows insulin to work more efficiently when combined with low-fat foods and exercise, helping to lower risks and even reversing symptoms of type 2 diabetes, per PCRM.
Antioxidants may help prevent cataracts and carotenoids may prevent retina deterioration, according to the United States Department of Agriculture's Research Service. Antioxidants and carotenoids are both more prevalent in plant-based diets than meaty diets.
A study conducted by PCRM in 1985 showed asthmatics that ate a plant-based diet for one year vastly improved their symptoms and lessened the need for medications. 22 out of 24 study participants reported marked improvement after eating a plant-based diet.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikeee

Pro

Sorry for taking so long to post my last round, I've been trying to find a quote to use for part of my argument, but unfortunately I couldn't find it.

Again, my opponent fails to see that not all hunter and gathers where the same. It is true that many clans of hunter and gathers where nomadic and frequently moved, but that is just one type of people. There where hunter and gathers who found a place that they could get an abundant amount of food to feed everyone without having to move, and people who built more "permanent" homes. Usually, in hunter and gather societies, the men would go on the hunt, which could take weeks, and bring back food, so if you did get sick or weak you wouldn't be slowing them down, and like I said earlier, most dieses developed because of agriculture. Even the nomadic people didn't have to move to far away because most of them where migratory. Birds fly south in the winter and go to the same spot to breed, and then return north. Some of the nomadic hunter and gathers did this as well; every hunter and gather didn't travel across the world.

To reiterate and make sure my point about the Native Americans getting small pox if clarified; Crossing the Atlantic Ocean was a fast way to travel back then, it is the equivalent to traveling across the world in a day by aircraft in today's standers. If you have seen the move Contagion (it was not good at all), they plot is that a woman gets a dieses in Asia, gets sick, and spreads it everywhere she goes. Because she went to different places all over the world, everyone on her plain got sick and spread it in the places they lived. People populated South America by 38,000 BC, it took thousands of years to get there and many generations, each time they moved further they adapted slowly, it was a gradual change, whereas crossing the Atlantic Ocean in just a few months was a sudden change. Before you go to parts of Africa, you have to take shots to build up immunity to the native dieses, if you just when without it you would get sick quickly.

The rest of the points Con makes are about overpopulation and issues it caused, which I will talk about this round.
The reason why the population of humans exploded is directly related to agriculture. After the invention of agriculture populations of individual clans increased, due to the surplus of food, they were able to support more people, more people more labor, specialization of labor, development of civilization, ect. By the time the whole world had discovered agriculture, civilization was starting to develop all around the world. This caused a population explosion. If instead of having one child, everyone has two, and then they have two, you see how the population rapidly expanded. The rest is common sense, more people, less land, more competition. Mammals are instinctively competitive to insure the survival of a species. This still leaves the question; wouldn't human population eventually expand in a hunting and gathering lifestyle? The answer is simple, no. It is a basic biological fact that population is limited by available resources in the ecosystem. There are good times, and there are bad times. If bears eat fish, and fish eat plants then they all stay equal. If bears start to thrive, then fish population decreases. With less fish bears are more completive and some die of hunger. When there are less fish, the fish that don't get eaten have it easier because there are less fish and more plants. If one part of the food chain is affected, all the other parts are affected. By developing agriculture we messed with the food chain and allowed ourselves to be the bears and control the fish populations. This sounds like a good thing but eventually crops don't grow and fish die. When there is not enough food to go around, people die of hunger. So, like you said, when there are too many people, there are conflicts.

Interesting points:

It is a little late to bring this up and it is somewhat irrelevant to this debate. Agriculture was first developed in places where there was enough game to support a larger population. This shows that in the beginning (of agriculture), people made a choice to do it rather than hunt and gather. Once hunter and gathers became the minority, they were pushed away from farmers and only gave up their lifestyle because they had to, not necessarily because they had to.
Irrelevant points:

"Anthropologists such as Tim White suggest that cannibalism was common in human societies prior to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, based on the large amount of "butchered human" bones found in Lower/Middle Paleolithic sites. Cannibalism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic likely occurred because of food shortages.
Maybe this is just me but I prefer grossery shopping to eating my next door neighbor."

This shows a bias by Con, it is not wrong to have an opinion, and obviously he is debating his side. I just ask that if you (the voter) are going to vote on this debate to think open-mindedly and not make assumptions just because something is true today. It is hard to look at history and not compare it to modern standers, which makes it unfair when we judge past civilizations. If you do vote pro, it doesn't mean you have to completely agree with my argument and go out in the woods and start to hunt and gather, just that you see that I make good enough points to defeat cons arguments.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com...
DanT

Con

My opponet claims that not all hunter gatherers was nomatic, but the fact still remains, the vast majority was nomatic, and we are talking about humanity, not a select population. The reason for humanity spreading across the globe was because of the vast majority of humanity consisted of nomatic tribes.

Diseases are not Directly related to Agriculture, they are directly related to previous diseases which has mutated in order to survive, such as the h1n1 virus.

Humanity did not overpopulate due to agriculture, humanity overpopulated due to lust. The Bushmen of Africa is a great example. According to Chamleon Safaris 1,300 Bushmen children are treated at their life line clinics each year; 75% of the Bushmen children they treat are malnourished. Obiouslly the Bushmen children's parents didn't care if there was enough food, before they decided to add to the population.

My opponent said, "When there is not enough food to go around, people die of hunger.", but it does not reach that point untill food is already scarce, and the entire population is malnourished.

As my opponent said, "Agriculture was first developed in places where there was enough game to support a larger population", hence they was forced into it, rather than starve.

My opponent claims that pointing out Anthropologists found traces of cannibalism, which antropoligits believe is due to food shortages prior to ariculture, is somehow bias, and irrelivant. I disagree, there is no bias, in pointing out that paleolithic humans had to resort to eating each other due to lack of food.




Also I noticed pro failed to recognise that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, both agree that high protein diets, such as in the paleolithic era, are bad for your health, and that too much Meat especially is bad for your health. This would mean Physicians are against the Hunter Gatherer lifestyle, because it poses health risks.




Conclusion;

Physicians agree that the Hunter Gatherer lifestyle is bad for one's health, and poses the risk of food shortages, according to Anthropologists . Both me and my opponent agree that the reason for the agricultural revolution was because of the lack of food. The vast majority of hunter gatherers was nomatic, which limits the progress of society; for example the stone age didn't end untill after the neolithic revolution. Hunter gatherers often went to war over food, and this lead to the extinction of many other homo species, such as homo neanderthalensis. Homo Sapiens are the only species of homo to survive past the paleolithic era, and into the neolithic era.







Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
Just because I didn't have a rebuttal about Con's point about the diet in the 3rd round doesn't mean its irrefutable, I could have addressed it, but I felt the rest of my points needed to be said...
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
This debate was only really the second time, because first time Con forfeited all but one round, and seraine asked to debate it with me, so probably four for now.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
How many times are you going to argue this resolution?
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
The quote that I talked about in the being (the one I couldn't find) was about how hunter and gathers benefited from having caner or some other condition, I couldn't remember what it was, I really wanted to use that in my rebuttal about his point with the health issues, I probably could have said more about it but I felt like I have almost exhausted it in all the debates about it.
Posted by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
It was more that you couldn't negate his argument than that your argument sucked.
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
There might have been a misunderstanding about the last two sections of my last round; they where just random things that where meant to be irrelevant to the debate, and the last part was just to encourage voters to think in the perspective of the people back then rather than modern time. I tried to make it obvious that I did not really want to have the last two sections to actual be part of my argument.
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
Sure, it be the fourth time debating it tho...
Posted by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
Mikeee, would you want to take me up on this?
Posted by Mikeee 2 years ago
Mikeee
So for this debate you want to mainly focus on technological advances and a little about population in the sense of competition for resources?
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
I look forward to the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 2 years ago
dappleshade
MikeeeDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, hunter-gather diet = bad as demonstrated by Physicians proved irrefutable. Good debate to read, thank you both :)
Vote Placed by seraine 2 years ago
seraine
MikeeeDanTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have argued this a lot better, but he did argue good enough to win. Pro said "who are we to judge" when Con showed that hunter gatherers were often cannibals because of little food. In addition, Con showed that agriculture has improved human life. Pro mainly argued that things like running water which improve the standard of living are not necessary. This does not work for an argument. Improving a standard of living and increasing the availability of food is not a mistake.