The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bnesiba
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The plethora, Version 2

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 779 times Debate No: 5264
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

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.
Bnesiba

Con

The Agriculture one sounds fun. i think i know where your going, but i think i'll be able to defend it.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Agriculture arose pretty much because hunter gatherer societies were growing in population and wanted to feed more people. The alternate solution that I argue they should have taken is to simply have not made more babies. This would have been very beneficial. Hunter gatherers work less, about 3 hours a day on average(1). They also are healthier, as forensic analysis of their bones has shown. Also, height is indicative of nutrition. The average human height before agriculture was about a foot taller than the height after agriculture. The height of agricultural people did not pick up for a few thousand years, and still is slightly shorter than HG's, even in rich developed countries. Third, any modern problem one could think of, global warming, war, pollution, poverty, social inequality, persistent crime, et cetera arose from agriculture. If we were still hunter-gatherers, we would not have coal plants and oil cars that emit CO2, war would be much less deadly, and much less frequent. Pollution, also would not occur without our industrial factories. Poverty would not exist because HG's worked with each other and shared food. HG's were also very egalitarian, and had little sexism or social classes. Crime only happens on a large scale when there are large populations, 60000 years ago, when everyone was an HG, there were only 10000 people.

Sources:
1.http://www.environnement.ens.fr......
Read it, it's pretty short and it's interesting.
The world problems points I made are pretty much common knowledge, we all know that what I said is true, but I can find a source if you need me to.
Bnesiba

Con

Bnesiba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

My opponent unfortunately forfeited. I await his return eagerly.
Bnesiba

Con

I am sorry for not posting the last round, I got caught up in something and forgot about it completely. It's fine if you (voters) vote con because of it, however, I still intend to debate the topic.

the resolution is: Agriculture was a mistake.

first I will make my case, then I will respond to my opponent's arguments.

definitions:

Agriculture-the production of food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic growing/harvesting of plants, animals and other life forms.

Mistake- a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention

because we have no way to tell what is a good/bad judgement, I supply the following:

Value: Utility
Utility is the principle which approves or disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Along with this, a criteria of Mill's separation of pleasure allows one to clearly show what actions would and wouldn't be good.

utility is the best way to weigh judgements in this round because it very clearly defines what a good and bad judgement would be.

I. Agriculture maximized utility and therefore was a good (albeit possibly unconscious) judgement.

Before agriculture, we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. These groups, would move with the herds of animals, and hunt or pick fruits and vegetables to survive. These groups could not include more than a couple hundred people at a maximum since, the income of food was not large enough to support any more. Finally, these societies had an average life expectancy of no more than 30 years. These people would grow up, breed and die, like many other animals.

Agriculture changed all that. With the discovery/invention of agriculture, groups could stay in one place and have a stable income of food. Populations could also support more people since they no longer needed to hunt for their food. For these same reasons, the life expectancy rose considerably with the use of agriculture.

Agriculture also allowed people to specialize in other area's since not everyone was required to get food. this lead to stronger/better buildings, tools and, in general, a better lifestyle.

Because agriculture allowed populations to no longer have to migrate with the herds, to have more people in any given population, and allowed specialization, which lead to advances in technology that made life longer and easier, I truly believe that Agriculture maximized Utility and therefore was a good judgment.

on to my opponent's case:

1.) they work less-this may be true, but, even so, the desk jobs that so many of us have are much more pleasant, and therefore provide more utility. Also, working less does not automatically mean more happiness. Unlike our jobs, the lives of the populations survived on the work that they did. Because of this, they're job would have been much more stressful and unpleasant then most jobs today.

2.) Healthier- Even if they were healthier, the fact that today, we live more than twice as long as them kind of negates this argument. Health, does not necessarily equal more utility, while, longer life does. Because we live longer, even if we are less healthy utility is maximized by agriculture, without which we would still only live to be 30 or 40 if we were lucky.

3.) Height- being tall is nice, but again, a doubled lifespan is worth much more than a foot of stature.

4.) World problems- There's alot included here so I'll break it down:

a. Global Warming- global warming IS a cycle. The debate whether or not we are causing a spike is pointless to this round because, although the earth is very slowly warming, the increase in temperature does not significantly effect very many people, and overall due to the cycle the earth will eventually cool again.

b. war- this is simply not true. If you look at the Inca, or any native tribe you will see that they DID war against each other. Even if their killing technology was not as advanced as ours, wars were, and still would be fought over food and other resources.

c. Poverty- I don't really understand this one since, all hunter gatherer societies were essentially impoverished. These societies, due to the fact that they did not always have food, and never had a permanent shelter makes them almost no different from today's impoverished people, except in today's society, these people are often looked after and given the things required to sustain life.

d. Pollution- this goes in with the global warming and healthier arguments. Basically, even though pollution in unhealthy, the fact that people who live in highly polluted area's still live longer than the HG societies means that utility is maximized by the neg.

e. Social Inequality- this is simply not true. HG societies, if you look to native populations, were often MUCH MORE socially unequal than today's societies. Women in HG societies existed solely to wait on their husbands and to make babies. Not only that, but, if, for example if a baby was born disformed, it was seen as a curse and often said child was either killed or left in the wild to be killed. Today's society is unequal, but women can have jobs, join the military ect. People who are crippled in some way have laws that require certain things in order to better their lives. In general, HG societies were actually much more socially unequal, and this actually is a reason why agriculture was a good idea.

f. Crime- With more people in one area, comes more people who think they can get away with things that would otherwise cause problems. The reason HG societies had less crime was because they were small, and required everyone to be able to work together in order to survive. Today, we have the luxury of not having to rely on others in order to live and this increases utility, which in turn provides more support to my thesis, that agriculture was, in face a very good idea.

In conclusion, because of agriculture, humans now live longer and better. We have more freedom and in general a better lifestyle. because all these things increase utility, I urge you to vote neg, that agriculture was an amazing idea that would have halted the advance of humans if it had not happened.
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

"I. Agriculture maximized utility and therefore was a good (albeit possibly unconscious) judgement.

Before agriculture, we lived in hunter-gatherer societies. These groups, would move with the herds of animals, and hunt or pick fruits and vegetables to survive. These groups could not include more than a couple hundred people at a maximum since, the income of food was not large enough to support any more. Finally, these societies had an average life expectancy of no more than 30 years. These people would grow up, breed and die, like many other animals.

Agriculture changed all that. With the discovery/invention of agriculture, groups could stay in one place and have a stable income of food. Populations could also support more people since they no longer needed to hunt for their food. For these same reasons, the life expectancy rose considerably with the use of agriculture.

Agriculture also allowed people to specialize in other area's since not everyone was required to get food. this lead to stronger/better buildings, tools and, in general, a better lifestyle.

Because agriculture allowed populations to no longer have to migrate with the herds, to have more people in any given population, and allowed specialization, which lead to advances in technology that made life longer and easier, I truly believe that Agriculture maximized Utility and therefore was a good judgment."

Let's use a moral calculus to figure this out. The people in HGs had a better quality of life, so more happiness. Now the average human lives in a third world country and has a really sucky life. That means a ton of unhappiness. Utility demands that we minimize pain, AND maximize happiness. As there is more pain in the agricultural society, it negates the extra happiness, so we go with HG. You claim that life expectancy rose, quality of life rose, et cetera, but it didn't until maybe 3000 years ago, and even then it still sucked for most people. Basically the negatives outweigh the positives.

"1.) they work less-this may be true, but, even so, the desk jobs that so many of us have are much more pleasant, and therefore provide more utility. Also, working less does not automatically mean more happiness. Unlike our jobs, the lives of the populations survived on the work that they did. Because of this, they're job would have been much more stressful and unpleasant then most jobs today."

Today, many people hunt for fun. So, the HG job would be fun, desk job, uhh... yeah, you choose hunt a woolly mammoth or do some accounting, your choice.

"2.) Healthier- Even if they were healthier, the fact that today, we live more than twice as long as them kind of negates this argument. Health, does not necessarily equal more utility, while, longer life does. Because we live longer, even if we are less healthy utility is maximized by agriculture, without which we would still only live to be 30 or 40 if we were lucky."

This increase in LE did not occur until fairly recently, so the negative utility from the 9000 years up until then outweighs it.
"3.) Height- being tall is nice, but again, a doubled lifespan is worth much more than a foot of stature."
That's just evidence that they were healthier, so up until very recently, when we regained that height, they lived a more healthy and lengthy life.

"a. Global Warming- global warming IS a cycle. The debate whether or not we are causing a spike is pointless to this round because, although the earth is very slowly warming, the increase in temperature does not significantly effect very many people, and overall due to the cycle the earth will eventually cool again."

I concede that point, simply because I agree with you.

"b. war- this is simply not true. If you look at the Inca, or any native tribe you will see that they DID war against each other. Even if their killing technology was not as advanced as ours, wars were, and still would be fought over food and other resources."

The Inca were not HGs, they used agriculture.

"c. Poverty- I don't really understand this one since, all hunter gatherer societies were essentially impoverished. These societies, due to the fact that they did not always have food, and never had a permanent shelter makes them almost no different from today's impoverished people, except in today's society, these people are often looked after and given the things required to sustain life."

They almost always had everything they needed to survive, they were fairly well-off.

"d. Pollution- this goes in with the global warming and healthier arguments. Basically, even though pollution in unhealthy, the fact that people who live in highly polluted area's still live longer than the HG societies means that utility is maximized by the neg."

I concede simply because I don't have time to disagree.

"e. Social Inequality- this is simply not true. HG societies, if you look to native populations, were often MUCH MORE socially unequal than today's societies. Women in HG societies existed solely to wait on their husbands and to make babies. Not only that, but, if, for example if a baby was born disformed, it was seen as a curse and often said child was either killed or left in the wild to be killed. Today's society is unequal, but women can have jobs, join the military ect. People who are crippled in some way have laws that require certain things in order to better their lives. In general, HG societies were actually much more socially unequal, and this actually is a reason why agriculture was a good idea."

It was so unequal it was horrible, up until again, recently. The negative utility from that outweighs the now positive utility. Women were actual very valued in HG societies, as they were the breadwinners.

"f. Crime- With more people in one area, comes more people who think they can get away with things that would otherwise cause problems. The reason HG societies had less crime was because they were small, and required everyone to be able to work together in order to survive. Today, we have the luxury of not having to rely on others in order to live and this increases utility, which in turn provides more support to my thesis, that agriculture was, in face a very good idea."
That's my point, they were small. Individualism is helpful now, but now is a sliver of time in human history.

Conclusion: Agriculture sucks I have to go to school.
Bnesiba

Con

Bnesiba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
In my first argument in the opening statement I meant to say: it's ok if you vote Pro because of my forfeited round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.