The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Strength in Numbers

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 3 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 60364
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

I argue that it is better to have loads and loads of something weak or almost-ineffectiveness rather than just one big almost-unbeatable object of certain kind.




Round one acceptance only.
daley

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

1. You always have a back-up with the small guys
Let's suppose you have 1,000 average men, some fat, some skinny, some short, some tall, but all have no fighting experience. And on the other side of the battle field we see Chuck Norris (the real life one, not the internet one) and Bruce Lee. Who would win this battle? We're not sure, but I'd put my money on the 1,000 average men. They could sacrifice half of themselves to tire out the two great fighters, then the rest try to run away, even if Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee could defeat as well as out-run the rest, it would be very tiring as they have to run a long distance while still killing off these people. With these 1,000 men, there's always some backup left. However, if all of them concentrate on one fighter, then only one master is left to fight. The team of 1,000 men can substain little damage this way while efficiently defeating these two master fighters. Even if the master fighters only burn little calory defeating one person, over time 500 people is going to burn a load of calories, making the last fighters very difficult to fight off since the masters are so exhausted.

2. You can look like the big guy or even look bigger
As presented in the humorous picture in round 1, the big fish isn't sure whether or not to eat the small fish. Fish's sight are actually pretty bad, which is why fish swim in schools. [1] In fact, not only do they look bigger, they also look more confusing to predators (The big fish), as their crazy motions can greatly incapitate the big fish, as shown in a study. [2] Once again, if the 1,000 men panic and run around and crash randomly into the two great fighters, Chuck and Bruce will have a hard time concentrating on picking one person off at a time.

3. Better job at multi-tasking
Let's assume you have to break into a maximum security prison. Of course, it would be good to hire somebody like Iron Man (version:evil) and burst in, kill the guards, get the keys, get everyone to escape, and fend off the cops while killing them off one by one. However, that would take a pretty long time. Iron Man would have to take his time and unlock every door, every handcuff, etc, etc. On the other hand if we even just have, say, 15 people who all only have red belt in karate and smart minds all around, they can watch out for one another and multitask better. As back to the fish example, source [3] and [4] all show that the fish can look around for predators everywhere, increasing vigilance, taking a much shorter time than just one big fish. The teaming up of so many fishes also has shown to allow more time for individual feeding. (also [3] and [4])

4. Teaming up to defeat the one guy
As I stated in point 3; collaboration is the key to these small groups. Many examples in history show a big amount, although small beings, defeat a single large being. One good example is Gulliver, who, although an extremely large giant, was still taken down quite quickly by the Lilliputs. [5]


Another good example is the book Swindle. Although the villain isn't exactly more powerful psysically, he was more powerful mentally and is easily smarter than any one of them, when compared to only one of them. However, he still got beaten by The Team, because The Team had 7 people who had multiple different skills and ideas that came together to ultimately break in and manage to steal the baseball card back. Even after a betrayal, the team still managed to hold sturdy and beat down the traitor. [6] Unlike fish, we are intelligent, so it makes sense that we can come up with many many different ideas. Diversity is key; it is hard for one person to come up with multiple creative ideas at a time, but it is not quite as difficult for multiple people to create multiple creative ideas at a time. As a famous Chinese quote translates to, "three cobblers with their wits can equal to Zhuge Liang", the latter whom was a mighty strategist managed to predict many weather patterns and won many battles without losing a single man. [7]

Thus I have shown in many cases where loads and loads of little, ineffective beings can match up--and even be better than--one single huge/far-superior being.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nature.com...
[3] Lima, S. Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: the group-size effect" Animal Behaviour 49:1. pp 11-20. 1995. [4] Roberts, G. Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim Behav. 51. pp 1077-1086. 1996.
daley

Con

When I think about a large crowd that is almost ineffective compared to just one big almost-unbeatable person, I think about two extremes that are much further apart than what Pro imagines. He thinks about Bruce Lee an Chuck Norris against 1000 men, but I think about a heavily armed man with grenades, a machine gun, and metal armor around his body. Now that's what i call ALMOST-UNBEATABLE. The 1000 persons are unarmed. Their punches and kicks can't get to him behind that armor, and most of them will be killed by the bullets anyway, plus the grenades will take out many of them at a time. If he has a flame torch all he needs to do is spin in a circle and light them on fire. I imagine most of them will run away. So no, I don't consider knowing martial arts enough to classify Chuck and Bruce as almost unbeatable, but when armed far above their opponents, then such a description is justified.

To defeat such an almost unbeatable opponent, the 1000 men would have to be smart. But then that would mean they were not almost ineffective to begin with. See I imagine almost ineffective versus almost unbeatable to be putting a fool against a wise man. Knowledge overcomes numbers any day. An army may have ten times more men, but the smaller army may have one genius who invents a weapon that guarantees victory without having to fight. Had the atom bomb been dropped on Hiroshima at the beginning they need not have been a war. The geniuses behind America's weaponry were actually just a few in comparison to the armies of their opponents, but even if they opponents outnumbered them, having such unbeatable genius would still make them victorious.

Our numbers outnumber a hurricane when it comes, but look at the destruction that hurricane does to our nation? Have we ever stopped a hurricane? No. If a huge asteroid bigger than the earth comes at us at fast enough speed, despite our numbers and all the may missiles we have it will still end our world. So if you are big enough, strong enough, and smart enough, it doesn't matter how much back up your opponent has.

If one billion caterpillars launched an attack against a pest control company with just 100 workers, they would loose. A plane could spray a chemical overhead while all employers wore special suits and masks, to kill all the caterpillars. A gas could also be released throughout the building. Just one pest control guys kills entire rat colonies because he is smarter. So my opponent just isn't factoring in the true definition of ALMOST UNBEATABLE.

Even with Pro's illustration of the fish, just imagine a school of flying fish trying to take on a great white shark. That shark would snap large numbers of those tiny fish in his mouth, and a quick turn in a circle will lash many other small fish and send them hurling about in confusion. They couldn't really puncture the shark's thick skin. And even if they confused him, being a faster swimmer than they are the shark could eat some and swim away from the crowd, come back and eat some more, separating his prey from the school as he descends. So I don't see little fish winning this one at all.

Now Pro talks about more hands mean better multitasking to get the job done in less time, and he compares 15 men breaking into a maximum security prison to Iron Man doing the same job. But all Iron Man has to do is scan the place, fire his missiles to blast a hole where he wants to get in, and all the guards bullets will bounce off him in the meantime. That would take a lot less time than the 15 men who aren't as smart as Iron Man to invent such scanning technology and have to spend time stealing the blueprints to begin with, have to spend time creating distractions, and trying to hack security codes with are encrypted with extremely long digit code by minds just as smart or smarter than the guys trying to break in. Even if they do hack the security feed they may still get caught in a gun fight, and unlike Iron Man who is covered all over, bullet proof vests won't protect their heads, feet or arms. So I don't see their multitasking will take less time, and being more technologically advanced actually makes the multitasking unnecessary in the case of Iron Man. Now just imagine with it were 1000 men trying to break in, versus Superman trying to break in, who would get it done faster? Superman of course. He is faster than a bullet and made of steel.

Gulliver was taken down by the Lilliputs because he wasn't trying to hurt them in the first place. "In the novel, Gulliver washes up on the shore of Lilliput and is captured by the inhabitants while asleep." http://www.google.com... In comparison, when Gulliver was awake, the very numerous Blefuscudian fleet is unable to defeat him. "He offers his services to the Emperor of Lilliput in his war against Blefuscu, and succeeds in capturing the (one-twelfth sized) Blefuscudian fleet." http://www.google.com... So size does matter. Remember Godzilla? Humans were only able to finish him off by using nuclear bombs, which has nothing at all to do with numbers, but intelligence. The more intelligent person, the one who builds the bomb and own a plane to drop it, will win the war against the thousands in the city where the bomb hits. Look at how many soldiers faced Godzilla and failed. Look at how many humans died at the hands of General Zod in Man of Steel. Only Superman could match him.

In Pro's last argument he says "it is hard for one person to come up with multiple creative ideas at a time, but it is not quite as difficult for multiple people to create multiple creative ideas at a time." I disagree. A single doctor who has studies medicine for years can come up with more ways to keep sick people alive in the wake of a natural disaster, even without all the hospital equipment and medication, than 1000 average people who don't have this knowledge. A man who has PhDs in Marketing and Advertising, plus many years working experience, can come up with more realistic marketing schemes and advertising plans for a product than a hundred men with little education. An economist can think up many more rational ways to run a country than a 1000 men who never studies how different sectors of the economy work and fit together. A single wise man is a lot better off than a 1000 fools. Whom do you rather be stranded with in a dessert? Many fools, or a few smart people?

You are lost in the jungle and facing predators like lions, snakes, bears and wolves. Who has the better advantage to help survive and beat the odds - three soldiers with survival skills who know a lot about animals, medicine, and making weapons, or 100 fools who know nothing about the wild?
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent makes some really good points. I'll try to rebut them all.
1000 men vs The heavily armed man with grenades, machine gun, and metal armor. The men could always tire him out by running around pointlessly, using other bodies as "armor" to protect themselves, throwing dead men upon the heavily armed man to distract him, only to have another man come from behind and steal the weapons to their own use. There's got to be at least one man who can come with that idea.

The genius verses the armies of their opponents: this is an interesting prospective, but if the army had spies, *backup*, then they would find out about the weapons and try to scatter the population or attack the military itself. In addition, not everyone dies within just a single nuclear bomb.

The hurricane is unbeatable. The asteroid is arguable, you did say the massive nuke could destroy an entire city. Plus, as you have mentioned, just one genius can destroy an army, imagine if a load of geniuses came together and invented a anti-gravity machine or a path-redirector massive-impact missile or something that manages to throw the asteroid off course, or do the opposite and change the path of Earth itself. Thus, a few seemingly powerless people combined together can defeat the asteroid.

One billion caterpillars vs Pest control company. The problem here is that my opponent does not remember that evolution causes mutations that allow certain bugs to develop immunities. Even just one caterpillar can reproduce into the same gigantic population and force the workers to quickly develop a new chemical or else be covered with caterpillars while screaming in disgust.

School of fish vs Shark. It is true that the fish would lose to the shark, but what about human capture? The humans could easily capture the shark in one try, while the fish are a bit of a gamble and some fish could get away if they noticed before the others. If all the fish swim in different directions, surely at least one of them would get away.

Iron man versus the 15 men: I suppose I have to drop this point.

Gulliver: okay, he was awake in the movie, and he was still captured. Same thing, not much of a difference there.
As of Godzilla, certainly people had to team up to build the nuclear bomb. It's not like the government gave one genius the job of building the nuke. As for General Zod, since he seems to have the same powers as Superman, if people observed him enough they could certainly come up with the idea to trap him in a Kryptonite environment underground. With a bunch of people, this is certainly financially manageable. On the other hand Superman would have great trouble doing the same thing due to his same weaknesses as General Zod. This also shows that diversity is a key and that if we had multiple people it would be very unlikely they have the same exact weakness.

Loads of fools vs few smart people: as I said before, "three cobblers can match up to Zhuge Liang". Their ideas are so diverse, one of them is bound to come up with a smart idea with all the other inspiration. Once again, I remind you all that if everyone has a little of some knowledge or objects, teamed up they can create a masterful plan or do something one single skilled guy couldn't manage to do.

100 fools vs 3 soldiers: at least the 100 fools can run around for basic necessity while teaming up quite well. Sure, people will have to die, but ultimately more come out. On the other hand if even one soldier dies that brings a huge disadvantage to the triumvirate, changing it to a mere pair.

Back to you, con.
daley

Con

Pro says regarding the 1000 versus the heavily armed man, "The men could always tire him out by running around pointlessly, using other bodies as "armor" to protect themselves, throwing dead men upon the heavily armed man to distract him." But as I said before, if he has a flame torch all he need do is spin in a circle while spitting fire. Even while holding dead bodies the 1000 men couldn't get to him. Just imagine yourself trying to lift a heavy body which is ON FIRE! Matter how courageous these men are, they have to succumb to the pain and fear of being burnt to death. They won't be able to even throw the bodies at the armed man when they themselves catch fire, which won't take long. We also have to remember that Pro describes these majorities as being ALMOST-INEFFECTIVE, so we don't imagine them to be the most courageous, fearless soldiers who aren't afraid to die in the face of odds like these. The flame torch could light the ground on fire (if on a grassy pasture, or if oil or other flammable materials are around) so that the 1000 men cannot even bare the heat. He, though, has a technologically advanced armor that is heat resistant. He is quite comfortable inside. Who will run through the flames to get at him? None!

Even without the torch, just think about the machine gun. These are armor piercing bullets. So even if the men hold up dead bodies in front them they won't get near him. The bullets will tear through the flesh of the dead and bore holes in the living. When he throws grenades at the guys further out, at this point is just all over. He can take out most of them in no time. So I don't see them getting close to him in the first place. So nobody is going to be able to steal his weapons. The armed man could also have the outside of his armor equipped with spikes, so that if anyone dares try to touch him and steal his weapons they will get injured instantly like trying to grab a cactus. It just goes to show if one man is smart enough he can defeat a 1000. What if the armed man coats his weapons in cow itch? He is fully covered, unaffected, but the second the men lay hands on his guns (if they could even get to it) they itch so much they have to put it down. Kinda think about it, he doesn't even need all these weapons, just the armor. If he bursts open a few bags of cow itch to blow in the wind on the faces, arms and legs of the 1000 men, its all over again. Everyone would just be rolling on the ground scratching while he takes his time killing each one.

Pro claims that if the army has spies they would find the bomb created by a genius, but a genius is so smart he could think of a hiding place for his bomb they would either never look, or a place so hard for them to get to they would never try. One might assume if America is building an atom bomb, it will be built on their own land, but what if a genius builds it on foreign soil while the spies look in vain for it in America? And yes, a bomb doesn't kill everyone. It didn't kill everyone in Japan when the atom bomb blew up Heroshima, but the survivors surrendered out of pure fear than another one would be dropped. That's the power of a single genius and a powerful weapon. When the bomb vaporizes 600 men, the other 400 will easily surrender. Why keep fighting when you don't know how many more bombs the genius has, and he is dropping them from his plane way up above the clouds where you can't reach him, and his plane has stealth so you can't even track him? From the sky as the advantage, it doesn't matter how many soldiers those below have, they are finished!

Pro admitted the hurricane is unbeatable, vote Con. Then had had to turn his army of almost INEFFECTIVE people into a planet full of geniuses to stop the asteroid. Didn't he watch Armageddon? Millions of fools can't take down 1 asteroid, especially one bigger than the earth. By making any of them geniuses with advanced weapons, he is back to arguing that that might beats numbers, because the might of super technology trumps the asteroid. And notice he had to speculate about technology we don't even have yet, why? Because the asteroid is bigger than the earth, so we have to be IN SOME WAY bigger and badder to defeat it, namely, having incredibly advanced technology. And why didn't he think of this for the storm, huh? Why didn't he say we could invent a weather machine that changes the weather and gets rid of storms? Cause that would be cheating and he knows it! You can't describe geniuses as being almost ineffective, that's a contradiction. Geniuses are usually very effective in whatever they do.

Furthermore, if the asteroid is made of compressed iron ore, and travels close to the speed of light, no power company can even generate what we would need to put a dent in that thing, let alone destroy it. Like the astrophysicist on Armageddon said: "You could fire every nuke you've got at her, and she'll just smile and keep on coming." That's why they needed to blow her up from the inside, and it took great intelligence and technology to do this, something almost ineffective people don't have. Something the average person doesn't have.

We kill caterpillars and other insects everyday; they aren't suddenly going to evolve in the middle of their extermination, and it will take a very long time for the few who do survive to pass on that mutation to their offspring. By the time they have populated back to being 1 billion for another attack, the Pest Control company would have noted the mutation and updated the pesticides to suit. We can reason, these caterpillars can't, that's our advantage. Even if a thousand caterpillars cover a man, the man isn't affected nor does he scream in disgust because he is covered from head to toe in his protective suit. He can easily squash these worms.

Pro had to abandon his argument on Iron Man versus the 15 men, so vote Con.

Pro says Gulliver was awake and still captured, but he fails to acknowledge that he was only captured because he was asleep. If Pro is going to allow the army of small, weak people the element of surprise, he has to be fair and give the one, strong, big enemy the same thing. Surely if Gulliver had the element of surprise they would never have captured him. If he had tied them up while they were sleeping I doubt they would get away either, so what does capturing a man while he sleeps prove? Gulliver was Godzilla to them.

Yes, people teamed up to build the nuclear bomb, people with PhDs in physics. That's not characteristic of the ordinary man who is almost ineffective. Pro isn't supposed to have any geniuses in this crowd.

One could put krptonite in a movie and use it to kill Zod, but it would be very unrealistic. It wouldn't work in the real world. Zod knows this is his main weakness, he isn't a fool. He has eyes that can see through walls. He isn't just going to go undergroud without looking where he is going. He's going to see through the earth to all the cryptonite down there and avoid it. In fact, he has laser eyes, so he can fire beams from the sky to destroy the people and the kryptonite without come close enough to them so they could stop him. Superman also has a suit that protects him from the effects of cryptonite. It appears in all the cartons and in the Lewis & Clarke series.

Pro says many people can run around for basis necessities, but the three soldiers actually know where to look because of their training, cutting down on time. And they only need enough for three, they don't need to look for enough to feed and protect a large crowd, so they have the advantage.

Thanks for a great debate so far.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Unfortunately I have to concede this debate. My opponent has too much un-counterable strong points. He wins. Vote my opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
I'd like to accept, and I think I can make a pretty good case for the big object.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
daley
I want to accept this debate.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
This debate is impossible to win.

By making Con argue "almost unbeatable", and you being allowed to argue two objects that are not alike, you then get to argue the possible thing that is beatable to the "almost unbeatable"
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
you can compare two non-like objects, don't think it matters
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Doesn't answer the question.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
you got it Domr.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Is this an argument of two 'like' objects?

One big gun vs billions of little guns
one big bomb vs billions of little bombs.

or are they two separate objects?
Posted by SarcasticMethod 2 years ago
SarcasticMethod
Crap, this is rather vague.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lol yeah, exactly
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
What if you have millions of tiny nukes to clusterbomb with?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
9spacekingdaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
9spacekingdaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Pro
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
9spacekingdaleyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.