The Instigator
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Society could collapse at any given moment

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: 1/26/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 6652
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

FalseReality

Pro

If any member (especially you) is going to post a comment with some sort of brilliant, smarmy, opposing argument, then I challenge them to instead accept the debate and put their money where their typing is. I won't discuss this paragraph further.

Anyway, my contention is that society is on the brink of collapsing. By this, I don't mean 'tomarrow we'll all be warring with each other', rather I say that at any point, with global realization of reality, society would go into complete chaos.

How is this possible? Things are working out so well right? That is both true and false. Yes, most modernized countries are able to live in a state of general stability. But I defy anyone to name one human populace that is not in some form of strife. The funny thing is that, save for the indigenous peoples that live in the deepest darkest jungles of where ever, most modern strife is caused by our institutions rather than nature (thats a Darwin quote by the way). Think about it, and I mean really think about it. Why are the hungry hungry? You say 'well, there's not enough food'. Really? Last time I went into a supermarket, I saw enough fruits, veggies, and canned goods, amoung other items, that could feed a small village for days, if not weeks or months. But that one supermarket supplies food for whole towns and cities. Hundreds of people go through there and buy food hour after hour until closing, if the place closes. Turns out that in the majority of cases, the shelves of that establishment are still well stocked. Maybe a few items will be sold out, but over all the whole place still has plenty. Now then, we all know that they don't restock when the store is dry. They are continually getting shipments from all over. But what makes matters worse is that some items aren't sold fast enough and are simply thrown out. There's a person somewhere out there in this world who died from starvation and we're throwing away canned food with dents in them. I don't have any article or statistic on these goings on because its a commonplace fact. Anyone with experience in food shoppong, or has practice simply with eating, should or does know this to be true. So if there is such a bountiful supply then why do the hungry starve, while others are allowed to eat? Its certainly not impossible for them to eat that apple. It's right there, waiting to be biten into. So why can't that starving guy have it? Because he's not 'allowed' to. Can you imagine, not being allowed to survive? Not to enjoy that one facet of your life that lets you have it in the first place? Is that right? I say no. Others say no. But it goes unheard. Now why have I been blathering on about this? As an example of intitutional stupidity. People are dying because their right to live is deprived from them. It isn't right, and as soon as that truth is realized (and it will) there will be chaos. To say that it won't is lunacy, but that is your challenge. To point out why, when people learn that they don't have to put up with 'it', they won't rise and rebel, taking what they want and need, throwing all of society into chaos until it eventually collapes into what I can only guess will be anarchy.

In anticipation, I imagine my opponent will bring up the point of fear. As I brought up in a debate about traffic lights, we let a light bulb rule over our actions, even though that light can physically do nothing to stop us, especially when there are those ever so annoying times when there is no one passing and you could easily make it across the street without harm. So why don't we? Fear. Not of the light but of the police, of those cameras that take pictures of our license plates. We don't want that fine or jail time, even though logic should clearly prevail. They stop us, not the fact that a light is red. But when you think about it, how many cops are really out there? (http://www.tcdailyplanet.net...) As an example, according tot his article on the RNC, there were appox. 3100 cops (600 local, 2500 elsewhere) where patrolling at the RNC. The total numbe of civilians was apporx 45000 to 50000. Even supposing its the former, that means that there were about 14 civilians for every one cop. That means for all the guns, gas, and pepper spray the police had access to, at least 14 people would be available to take out every one cop. Now, suppose along with that, the entire population of Minneapolis joined in on this rebellion? So adding about 370000 to 45000 make the total riot about 415000 strong. THis now means that for every one cop present at the convention, there are now 133 people for each one of them. I don't care if your the most BA cop out there, you have no chance against those numbers all coming at you. A world wide rebellion would be even more disasterous, even if you add the military into the equation. No matter how you fudge the numbers, if the populace, not just a small sect, rose up against both local law enforcment and the military, they would win and things would go their way. Am I saying it would go the right way? Absolutly not. However it is mathematical fact that people without guns out number those with them, and even if half that number died trying to kill the cop, the cop would lose. So while fear exists now, that fear has no chance against numbers.

There are more arguments I could make, but class is starting soon, so I'll leave you with this. Thanks for accepting who ever you are. Ta.
Puck

Con

"with global realization of reality, society would go into complete chaos."

I'm not entirely sure what "global realization of reality" is - however...
Chaos: noun - A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.

Please elaborate how this will arise, next round.

"Yes, most modernized countries are able to live in a state of general stability. But I defy anyone to name one human populace that is not in some form of strife."

Relevant how? History is rife with examples of warfare and political instability. We still managed to crawl out of the Dark ages, pass through the Renaissance; the industrialisation of many nations, the Enlightenment era, technology revolution...

"save for the indigenous peoples that live in the deepest darkest jungles of where ever, most modern strife is caused by our institutions rather than nature"

Institutions can only ever be regarded as its constituent individuals - whether working under a common premise or not. A tribe is also an 'institution' simply with base survival as the major driving ethos.

"Why are the hungry hungry? You say 'well, there's not enough food'."
Ambiguous collective fallacy.

"But that one supermarket supplies food for whole towns and cities."

It's unclear how that in particular is relevant, especially considering that one store will never service an entire city - let alone a town. Competition tends to arise when a service is clearly valuable. Feel free to explain next round.

"But what makes matters worse is that some items aren't sold fast enough and are simply thrown out."

Products deteriorate over time - as will their nutritional benefit. Supermarkets may and do donate freely to food banks when dates are close to end or past - however they are free to dispose of their property as they deem within the law. If that includes as waste then that is perfectly legitimate - waste however is not in a business' best interest.

http://feedingamerica.org...

"There's a person somewhere out there in this world who died from starvation and we're throwing away canned food with dents in them."

There is a reason that canned damaged goods are thrown away as there is a possibility that the can seal has been compromised. In particular the fatal bacteria Clostridium botulinum can develop (botulism poisoning).

http://www.fda.gov...

"So if there is such a bountiful supply then why do the hungry starve, while others are allowed to eat? Its certainly not impossible for them to eat that apple. It's right there, waiting to be biten into. So why can't that starving guy have it? Because he's not 'allowed' to. Can you imagine, not being allowed to survive? Not to enjoy that one facet of your life that lets you have it in the first place? Is that right? I say no. Others say no. But it goes unheard."

Why can't someone simply take what they want? Simply because it is theft. One's need is irrelevant to act itself - by which you would advocate the slavery of all food producers to those that do not produce enough to earn something of value from an employer for exchange. It violates the basic premise of trade and commerce. The food is owned by the store owner or employed to redistribute as such - they have controlling property rights of the goods they purchase.

Individuals are not being stopped from surviving, they can work to that end however they desire provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Theft, even if endorsed, is not engaging in the proper actions required for their own survival. Right to life means one is solely and wholly responsible for one's own life, one cannot make claims on others to be. There is no such thing as a right to take away another's rights, which is what you have proposed.

"People are dying because their right to live is deprived from them."

Incorrect - their rights are not violated at all, and you have failed to show otherwise. People are not actioning against them until they try to violate the rights of others by taking property they have NO ownership in.

"It isn't right, and as soon as that truth is realized (and it will) there will be chaos."

People realise when they are hungry. :) Equally sure they know where the supermarkets are too. :D Still hasn't given rise to any recent food riots.

"To point out why, when people learn that they don't have to put up with 'it', they won't rise and rebel, taking what they want and need, throwing all of society into chaos until it eventually collapes into what I can only guess will be anarchy."

Namely it won't occur because destroying the institutions that provide food which may benefit a few for a short period will only relegate many more to hunger through the removal of replenishing supermarkets. :) Not to mention when you enter the realm of every man for himself which you appear to think will happen - that certainly only benefits those who are most capable of defending themselves from others - firstly that means 'those hungry' vs. themselves, additionally vs. state retaliation and quite feasibly store owners. It is neither feasible nor conducive to one's security or life in any meaningful manner.

You have also entirely ignored the fact that charitable institutions arise that deal specifically with these concerns; equally that any one individual is free to help any one other as they see fit.

"In anticipation, I imagine my opponent will bring up the point of fear."

Nope. Knowing you are more likely to get shot pursuing certain actions and avoiding those is however the rational thing to do. :)

"The total numbe of civilians was apporx 45000 to 50000. Even supposing its the former, that means that there were about 14 civilians for every one cop. That means for all the guns, gas, and pepper spray the police had access to, at least 14 people would be available to take out every one cop."

Those attending the convention are unlikely to be in need of revolting. The same applies en masse itself. Simply because there is a larger percentage of population to police does not entail that population wishes to remove the police. :) You have failed to construct a logical sequence where a few presumably homeless people rally an entire city to their cause - a cause the majority have no need to further and which will resonate amongst them surely along the lines of "well they want to remove that....who is next" which does nothing to further their own interests. Insecurity is not conducive to most interests.

"Now, suppose along with that, the entire population of Minneapolis joined in on this rebellion?"

Supposing and being possible are far removed here - and you have failed to construct any plausible reason why they would.

"However it is mathematical fact that people without guns out number those with them, and even if half that number died trying to kill the cop, the cop would lose. So while fear exists now, that fear has no chance against numbers."

Not bullets however, of which a rapid number can be expelled in a short period, halting most unarmed advances simply because self preservation is regarded more highly than a mob rush towards death. Not to mention simply removing one section of armed resistance simply invites another larger force to target you.
Debate Round No. 1
FalseReality

Pro

FalseReality forfeited this round.
Puck

Con

Forfeits falter the furtherance of felicitous flourishings of formulations.
Debate Round No. 2
FalseReality

Pro

I'm very sorry, school caught up with me. I forfiet this debate to Puck. I think I'll repost this when I have more time, and will put it in a more understandable manner.
Puck

Con

Real life comes first. :)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did not make a case that could stand on its own merits. The resolution was that "society could collapse" yet Pro's whole case was "bad things are happening." As Con pointed out, bad things have always been happening. Therefore Pro had to made a case that there was some aspect of present society that makes instability a much greater than ever before. Pro did not attempt to construct such an argument. The case would have been easier to make 40 years ago, in the midst of the Cold War with a nuclear threat, and when huge famines were far more common now.

Multiple forfeitures is fatal bad conduct.

Con wins easily.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
FalseRealityPuckTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
FalseRealityPuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
FalseRealityPuckTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
FalseRealityPuckTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
FalseRealityPuckTied
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