The Instigator
IrishWolverine
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
traww_dave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Fantasy of a Perfect Utopia is an Impossible One to Achieve

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 56654
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

IrishWolverine

Pro

The first round will be acceptance and opening remarks/arguments. 2, 3 and 4 will each be rebuttals with new arguments, final round will be final rebuttals with NO new argument. Pretty straight forward.

For this debate, I am contending that, while there have been many theories and ideas about how to achieve the so called "Utopia", these theories are just that: theories and ideas that will never be fully realized. Certain individuals have often pictured the perfect society as a setting where everyone is treated with absolutely dignity and respect, where the riches of the economy are evenly distributed so that each person can live comfortably but not exorbitantly, and where we will spend our time pursuing the arts and recreational activities while the hard labor is assigned to advanced technologies. While I am open to other theories about the nature of a Utopia if there are plausible scenarios for their existence, at the very least the Utopia in question must allow for:
a) A unifying belief system that eradicates pretenses for global conflicts, religious strife and general misconduct between individuals
b) The even redistribution of economic goods that ensure that no one is richer or poorer than anyone else, but that everyone receives enough to live with dignity.

There can be numerous alterations to the scenario, such as the eradication of all religion, or the rise of a government-less state. One just must be able to show HOW such achievements would be within the realm of possibility. If a particular scenario is shown to be possible, then the end must justify the means(i.e., administering a brain controlling drug to the population, "Equilibrium" style, that makes us less than human would not qualify as a perfect society in my mind, and I would be happy to debate that aspect too if it is brought up).

I will contest these theories mainly on the basis of how human nature works, and how it can never be fully altered. As long as there are humans, there will always be competition, there will always be suspicion and there will always be a struggle to stay on top. No amount of technological advancement can change that; if anything, technology will indefinitely make the struggle for supremacy more dangerous and destructive. The closest I could come to believing in a Utopia is if everyone were to adopt a basic moral code to live by, not necessarily a religious one, but just based on common sense. This will never happen though, because humans are violent by default, and it will always manifest itself in the worst of us.

If this challenge is accepted by someone, I hope to go into more detail with my arguments.
traww_dave

Con

It took me a while to decide whether I was going to argue this topic because its hard for me to convey into words as well. I do ask for consideration in my vocabulary and grammar as I am typing in a tablet.
The word utopia is defined as an imaginary place in which everything is perfect. I believe that such a world is possible. The main argument is that utopia itself is subjective. Meaning, Utopia for Hitler would be a world with no Jewish descent, for Martin Luther King Jr, it may be a world in which there is no racism at all. My Utopia could be something else. There are people in this world that may have already achieved their version of Utopia. Utopia is something that you can make happen by changing your environment, life style, health, and perception of life.
Also, the opinion that Utopia cannot happen is simply an opinion. My theory is that before electricity was discovered, electricity was viewed as the way you are viewing Utopia right now. Humans need to see it to believe it and after it is made humans live and breathe by it. Electricity and Utopia differ too much to explain thoroughly, so I'll show you another example. Before slavery was abolished many people saw a world with no slavery as a Utopia that could never be reached. However, because of the people that did believe it was possible, we live in a slavery free country.
I also want to make the remark that I only believe that Utopia is possible. That doesn't mean I believe it will happen. So please do not include any opinions on whether it will happen, only explain how it can happen. Not everything that's possible happens.
Debate Round No. 1
IrishWolverine

Pro

Thank you for accepting, I acknowledge your use of the tablet.


--The word utopia is defined as an imaginary place in which everything is perfect.

After re-reading my title, I admit that using the word "perfect" might be a bit much, but I think we both agree on the idea: near-perfection, or the eradication of all possible social evils(as perceived by the particular theorist).

--I believe that such a world is possible. The main argument is that utopia itself is subjective. Meaning, Utopia for Hitler would be a world with no Jewish descent, for Martin Luther King Jr, it may be a world in which there is no racism at all. My Utopia could be something else. There are people in this world that may have already achieved their version of Utopia. Utopia is something that you can make happen by changing your environment, life style, health, and perception of life.

I admit the idea is subjective, perhaps I should have been more specific with the definition. In my mind, the Utopia I hear about most often is the communist idea of a classless, government-less society which has equalized all incomes and unified the world in a common ideology. Most ideas of utopia roughly conform to this definition, thus leading to the generalization of the views of "I do/don't believe in a perfect society." So to put it more clearly for this debate, I will say that I do NOT believe all humans have the potential to unite under one ideology, I do NOT believe that we can bring all humans to the same economic level and expect them to live decently and I do NOT believe we can have a society with either a entirely incorruptible government or no government at all. If you disagree with any one of these points then we can focus on that for the purposes of this debate.

-- My theory is that before electricity was discovered, electricity was viewed as the way you are viewing Utopia right now. Humans need to see it to believe it and after it is made humans live and breathe by it.

While technological advancements play a huge role in the development of society, they are not the standard by which we judge a Utopia. Many advanced societies were seriously lacking in other aspects, thus rendering them incapable of preventing their eventual downfalls(Mayans, Egypt, Rome, etc.)


-- Before slavery was abolished many people saw a world with no slavery as a Utopia that could never be reached. However, because of the people that did believe it was possible, we live in a slavery free country.

While slavery is an outlawed practice in most countries, that doesn't mean that underground human trafficking doesn't continue throughout most of the world. I believe this is a fundamental example of human nature being impossible to change. The best of us might make progress in certain areas, but there will always be a "natural state of man" where conflict exists.


--I also want to make the remark that I only believe that Utopia is possible. That doesn't mean I believe it will happen. So please do not include any opinions on whether it will happen, only explain how it can happen. Not everything that's possible happens.

True, but DO you believe it will or not? Your answer will probably change the dynamic of the debate.
traww_dave

Con

traww_dave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
IrishWolverine

Pro

I will post no further argument until my opponent is able to continue.
traww_dave

Con

traww_dave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IrishWolverine

Pro

Posting to avoid forfeiting, while I wait for my opponent.
traww_dave

Con

traww_dave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IrishWolverine

Pro

IrishWolverine forfeited this round.
traww_dave

Con

traww_dave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by IrishWolverine 2 years ago
IrishWolverine
It's all good. Luke Krog another day perhaps, the same topic if you'd like.
Posted by traww_dave 2 years ago
traww_dave
Oops, sorry about that.
Didn't read the comments til now. Sorry for disturbing your plans, but I mean since I started we might as well finish Wolverine.
Posted by Luke_Krog 2 years ago
Luke_Krog
Oh damn, looks like someone beat me to it.
Posted by IrishWolverine 2 years ago
IrishWolverine
I like your style Sir. I had to miss the finale but it will definitely be a priority this week. I look forward to debating you!
Posted by Luke_Krog 2 years ago
Luke_Krog
Alright, I think I will accept. However, I just watched the latest Game of Thrones and am now too intoxicated with love for the show to debate. I will accept in the coming days though.
Posted by IrishWolverine 2 years ago
IrishWolverine
I would say that, I would be challenging you, so I must approach it as if my position is proven in my mind.
Posted by Luke_Krog 2 years ago
Luke_Krog
Hmm, I am a rookie, but I suppose I would be willing to take this debate. Am I correct in saying you shoulder the BoP?
No votes have been placed for this debate.