The Instigator
Leonitus_Trujillo
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
VaLoR
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The world's history is mostly pre-determined to happen the way it has happened.

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: 12/21/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

I am not saying that God outlined history to happen the way it happened. What I am saying logically and scientifically it can be proven that world history on Earth would be similar to world history on another planet with the same conditions as earth.

Earth is the perfect distance away from the sun that our atmosphere wont be sucked into the sun's orbit, which is the case with mars. We are the perfect near the sun that there is suitable warmth for life. Therefore life exist on Earth.

Because of Earth's distribution of resources some societies specialized in the workmanship of some resources while other societies specialized in others. And societies who were experienced with more important combat resources had an advantage over societies with weaker combat resources. Example: the Bronze workers of China that allowed the Early dynasty's to expand (before the Mongols) over those who relied one wood.

Becuase of Earth's shape and topography some societies were able to communicate with other societies more easily than other societies. Eurasia is stretched horizontally. Therefore man societies share the same climate because climate changes depending upon how far above or below the equator you are. With many societies sharing the same climate in similar agricultural technologies were able to spread because they could help many peoples. Agriculture began in Mesopotamia and spread East and West.Whereas the America's Land was streched vertically. And the length of the American continents was split between many different climate zones. So societies could not disperse agricultural technology long distances. Now of course it could be argued that Eurasia does experience most of the climates just as the Americas but what I am looking at is the distribution of land per climate. And the Topography of course with Mountains and rivers and canyons that divide people isolate certain societies and not others.

So before history even begins we can see that certain societies have an advantage based on purely where they are in the world, and before we through anything else into the mix trough analysis we can see which societies has the most advantage and is therefore most probable to succeed without taking into account any specifics.

This society is the one which lives in present day Great Britain. Great Britain is in Europe but it is an Island Nation. Therefore it has an incredible defensive bonus, it only needs to focus on its sea power really. By focusing on the sea power your increasing the ability to travel to communicate with other societies. And this explains why Britain although not the first was eventually the Dominant Imperial Force. Because it was the dominant Imperial force it had the most resources available to it. Becuae it had the most resources it was natural that industrialization began there. Because Industrialization began there it had an economic head start over the other European societies. Industrialization went better in england because the island Nations topography allowed for tight communication between different sections, and natural rivers that allowed for the shipment of heavy resources before the railroad and canals were developed.

That is just one case example. I invite anybody to come and take up the argument for Con, That human history developed the way it did out of pure chance. And please someone who knows his history.
VaLoR

Con

VaLoR forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Another Example.

People say that creation of steel was an accident. And technical I'll admit it was an accident. In antiquity a person smelting Iron led a jar of carbon fall in it and created a super hard material. Steel remained to be produced in a small scale all over the world primarily for swords. But I contemplate that this "accident" was no accident. It was merely a matter of chance that when societies began to work with IRON and CARBON that one day in one location they would meet with each other.

Humans solve problems.

Case in point. Why do the adobe structures present in the Middle East , where found in the new world . Two societies that NEVER had contact developed the same solution to a common problem. The problem was the need to create shelter with limited tools. The solution? Adobe a compound made from mud that when hardened is really strong.

Heres another example. The spear.

It can often be overlooked by how is it possible that the speer has been found in a variety of societies that NEVER had contact with each other. The speer has been found in Early Bantu Africa and Eurasia, those societies have come into contact with each other so it can be argued that it defused. But also the Native Americans also had spears.

If a person argues that the nomads that crossed the bearing straights had spears from asia then heres another case.

Iron working was something that definitively was not around during the ice age when the bearing straight was crossable. Yet the Native Americans in modern day Dominican Republic were wearing gold earings, that they made becuase as time went on the society found out they were living next to a river were gold was present. Becuase they lived next to gold time advanced and they learned the technique of Metal working. The same Technique known by every society who has access to gold no matter if they are isolated or not.
VaLoR

Con

I apologize for not responding in round 1. I had very little free time due to the holiday season and an increase in work hours accordingly. I did type up a lengthy, near 8,000 character response originally, but my web browser decided to close randomly before it could be submitted, which infuriated me.

Again, to all, I apologize.

On to my response for Round 2...

In Round 1 you stated:

"What I am saying logically and scientifically it can be proven that world history on Earth would be similar to world history on another planet with the same conditions as earth."

Where you fail here is with the use of the word "proven". The burden of "proof" is on you here. Mere probability will not suffice.

Sure, it could be argued that there would be *similarities* based on the basic laws of nature and science through evolution, but history is not predetermined. This statement is further *assuming* that a world with the same conditions as Earth would *certainly* develop intelligent life, us. And, this is also assuming that this "twin planet" would by this time contain the same organisms in all categories: insects, mammals, birds, fish etc. of all the same species as we see every day here on Earth. For, if not, history could, and would, follow a different path.

It should be noted that evolution through natural selection deals a lot with chance. Opportunistic organisms compete, thrive, or die out, all depending on their surrounding environment (that may occasionally change randomly to favor a new organism over a previous one [is weather consistant and predictable by pattern without observation?]), competition (survival of the fittest), and most importantly, their own actions. Free will must be taken into account, for free will is contradictory to the idea of predetermined history. Thoughts and actions are not predetermined. Seemingly favorable actions might be encouraging to an individual, but individuals do not always take the most favorable route. Criminal action is evidence of this. Some individuals take risks, others do not. Unique personalities play their part in history. Personality is not predetermined. Thoughts and actions cannot be predicted, therefore, history cannot be predetermined. Future decisions are not wired into our genes at birth, and many decisions are made without confidence in either option, thus random. Even the slightest variation can make all the difference in decades time.

In Round 1 you also stated:

"Earth is the perfect distance away from the sun that our atmosphere wont be sucked into the sun's orbit, which is the case with mars. We are the perfect near the sun that there is suitable warmth for life. Therefore life exist on Earth."

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with your argument, but I can say with absolute certainty that it is wholly inaccurate.

The atmosphere of Mars dissipated over millions of years, accelerating as the core solidified, due to its low gravity and lack of a magnetic field (produced by a liquid molten core), not its position in the solar system. The magnetic field of Earth deflects much of the solar wind from the sun, preventing it from stripping away its atmosphere. Mars does not have such a shield, thus its atmosphere is literally blowing away.

Mars is actually *further* from the Sun than the Earth. Thus, with the logic of your argument one might wonder why Mars' atmosphere succumbed to the attractive force of gravity generated by the Sun, and not the Earth. It would also be baffling to wonder why Venus, whose atmosphere is nearly 900 times as dense as the Earths, would not succumb to this same fate, considering the fact that Venus is about 30 million miles closer to the Sun than the Earth.

You then go on to make arguments considering geography, agriculture and climate's role in developing civilization. Again, although this forms a blueprint for a *potential* history and creates a probable pattern that appears logically predictable, it does not connect the dots in absolute terms as you claim. It's a basic foundation upon which decisions and conflicts arise, but none of these can be determined with absolute certainty, and even those that seem probable based on the circumstances depending on geography and agricultural trade between different factions of humanity, there is no telling how said conflicts would play out due to free will, actions and decision making, often reliant on individual personality -- social and psychological tendencies. A few alterations in decision making could change the course of a battle, and these decisions are reliant on the actions of the pawns of war.

In Round 2 you go on to give more examples of correlative behavior. Although these are examples of independently derived correlative patterns to solve problems and exploit resources etc., this still doesn't lead to an absolute, predetermined history. We can't pick and choose, everything has to fall in place perfectly. Perfectly! These examples are empty of their purpose.

Human innovation utilizes logic in a generic manner. Such rudimentary innovations are often dictated by the logic and reason of human instinct. If you're cold, instinct tells you to shield your body from the environment. If it rains, instinct tells you to find, or create, shelter. Motivation is inspired to develop such innovations by building off these instinctual responses, it does not dictate history, it only serves as a catalyst to progression as a technological civilization. Dictating your advancement, not your decision making.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
Debate Round No. 2
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Will you bring up an interesting argument, Evolution. My question was about human history, but I certainly recognize the impact of the non-human organisms on human history. Now to argue in this debate you'd have to stick to the parameters of the question just like in any debate. The question states that world history ; the study of human development on every continent from the beginning of human history to modern times; that this would be the same on a twin planet. So for us to argue the topic we'd have to assume that humans are present in the other planet.

Now as to the other organisms, I am convinced they would have an appearance on the other planet is as well, in fact all of them at the same relative time. Now I'm not talking about a timeline that que's the organisms when to come into existence and when to be extinct. When I say relative, I mean relative to each other. My argument isn't that human history would be a copy. My argument is that it would be a relative copy, in fact the question of the debate uses the word "similar." So I do not think the burden of proof is on me.
Back to evolution. The theory of evolution revolves around natural selection, those most adapted to their local environment will survive , and those most responsive to change will survive in the long run. If there is a twin planet it would have the same initial environment as Earth did. Therefore the organisms the same organisms would develop, because they have to develop certain characteristics that allow them to live in the conditions that are present. Then as the planet matures like Earth did, the organisms will have to develop answers to new problems that face them, and like a math problem there is only one answer. Because each organism can only have one answer to the problem that's challenging it, I believe that if there was a twin earth, the organisms would be the same.

Many may be skeptical that there is only one way to adapt to the environment for all organisms, that's clearly not the case, many organisms have found different answers to the same solution. The problem is that when animals evolve it takes a long time, many die out before that dire change that needs to be made is complete. The change that the animal needs to make has to a)work together with every other part of that organisms; because that organisms doesn't have time to change it's entire biological structure to fit that need, and if it does it might put it in a bad position for the next evolutionary change. and B) The changes needs to be the fastest one possible; taking too long to evolve(relatively) could lead to an extinct species. So yes there are many answers for one problem overall, when we take it down to the species level, each animal can't use the answer of another animal, there is one answer for that animal.

So because the habitats are the same on the twin planets , evolution will take its course, because all evolution is , is organisms adapting to their environment, and if the environment is the same, the adaptations would be the same.

You argue that thoughts and actions cannot be predicted. I will say that specific thoughts cannot be predicted, but we can logically come up with thoughts that a human would be facing, and actions that are eminent. If a human hasn't eaten in a week, we know that hunger is on its mind. We know that if the parents of that human has taught him how to fish, and there is a lake nearby, we can deduce that, that human will try to fish. Why? because A) he is hungry and B) he knows that fishing will solve his hunger. If that human is armed with a spear, we can deduce that he will use that spear to fish.
A humans actions are determined by that human. However human's act based on things they have no control over. They act based on want, and based on need, and according to the means available to them for that action. So if we know what they want and need, and we know what they have access to, we can deduce their actions. Granted some humans may not act they way the should act to solve a problem. However society as a whole will produce one individual or a group of individuals who will. And that is why the human history on a twin planet will be similar.

Now in regards to my astronomy there I was a bit off. I was trying to explain how orbital escape velocity relates to Earth. What I was trying to do is help develop that logical sequence that is familiar in my argument. There are many theorize as to why Earth is the planet life began, or how water got on earth. They vary differently in what they say but they are all constructed logically.
VaLoR

Con

VaLoR forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
I was having computer problems.. lighten up. I explained that prior to posting. This holiday season was unexpectedly busy for me, and I had to deal with many unplanned for situations. I had hardly an hour of free-time, unless I wanted to lose sleep over this debate. I worked over 100 hours in the past 11 days while also trying to make time for family occasions and such. I apologize for the inconvenience. I tried several times to submit the argument the night before. I also typed up a new one (the one posted in three segments in this comments section), which missed the time limit by a few seconds I assume? According to my other web browser, which I refreshed to double check before posting, I still had 13 minutes, but whatever.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Hold on, I thought the debate was over I wasn't expecting to have to continue it after the alloted time was up so I didn't even look back here, until I realized my win ration went down. I can't be expected to defend my argument in the comments sections??
Valor if you want to take the issue up again challenge me to another debate I'll be happy to accept. But people vote on what was said in the debate section. Valor forfieted too rounds even though his one argument were very good, I refuted it and provided more substance with my TWO other arguments.

This isn't a survey.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Valor won this argument with three sentences, logically:

"Where you fail here is with the use of the word "proven". The burden of "proof" is on you here. Mere probability will not suffice."
Posted by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
You go on to make more of the same arguments as before, but your focus is off. You are targeting the advancement of civilization, not world history itself! Otherwise, I would be inclined to agree. There would be a similar succession of events leading down the road of scientific advancement. BUT, it should ALSO be considered that many of the inventions of modern day WERE arrived upon by ACCIDENT! This certainly shakes things up a bit. The succession of events is thus distorted, therefore, distorting world history in the whole!

In order to argue your point on "world history" being pre-determined, you must take into account events, not just innovations. Again, you can't pick and choose which facts you would like to use to support your ambiguous argument. Also, in order to encompass the full scope of your original premise you must take innovation in the same stride as events themselves to truly define world history. Otherwise, I would be inclined to agree with your position given the basic parameters of science and nature. The basic laws and principles that govern our universe allow for obviously predictable correlations in innovation, but do NOT predetermine history! Thus, your argument is empty. Actions, by and large, CANNOT be predicted; therefore, history cannot be predetermined!

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Posted by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
You said, "My argument isn't that human history would be a copy. My argument is that it would be a relative copy, in fact the question of the debate uses the word "similar." So I do not think the burden of proof is on me."

You DID say the word "proven."

"What I am saying logically and scientifically it can be _*proven*_ that _*world history*_ on Earth would be similar to _*world history*_ on another planet with the same conditions as earth.

Even if your argument had promise, the use of the word "proven" sets you back tremendously thus off setting your argument completely. You cannot prove an unprovable proposition, thus your argument eliminates itself from the realm of reality. You must choose your words more wisely.

You said: "Back to evolution. The theory of evolution revolves around natural selection, those most adapted to their local environment will survive , and those most responsive to change will survive in the long run. If there is a twin planet it would have the same initial environment as Earth did."

I would be inclined to agree, except for one fact not taken into consideration. The conditions of Earth were not predictable by pattern without observation, as I stated in a previous argument. Weather is never predictable by pattern, only over thousands of years. Because of the fact that it cannot be stated with confidence upon which epoch a given organism may come to being, the surrounding environment may not support their evolutionary advancement. It should also be considered that one of the primary reasons for evolution, *mutations*, are NOT consistent, they are random. Mutations make the evolution of organisms unpredictable.
Posted by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
You said: "Now to argue in this debate you'd have to stick to the parameters of the question just like in any debate. The question states that world history ; the study of human development on every continent from the beginning of human history to modern times; that this would be the same on a twin planet."

Evolution does have to do with history. The topic of this debate is "The World's HISTORY is mostly pre-determined to happen the way it has happened." Is it not? You ignore evolution as a factor in history despite its obviously applications. Okay, but how about free will? You have transformed your argument into a rather ambiguous one that strays from the apparent original intended premise. You have thus turned "world history" into "technological development" of a given civilization. There are obvious differences between these two topics. World history deals with HISTORY. History is defined as "the aggregate of past events; "a critical time in the school's history"

You said, "Now as to the other organisms, I am convinced they would have an appearance on the other planet is as well, in fact all of them at the same relative time. Now I'm not talking about a timeline that que's the organisms when to come into existence and when to be extinct. When I say relative, I mean relative to each other."

So, you're now saying that all the organisms that came to be on Earth were guaranteed to come to be given the conditions of Earth? This is utterly absurd. If such were true, we should expect to see similar, or identical, organisms all over the universe (once we have the technology capable to make such observations). Scientists are certainly not expecting congruency, but unimaginable variety. You are at odds with the consensus opinion of modern science here.
Posted by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
It did not allow me to post my last argument for some reason?? I kept getting an error message. This was last night, in which case it should have been submitted if you consider the 3 day time limit. Not only that, but the fact that the time to vote was opened just today.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
I can't really argue for PURE chance. But, your argument identifies the probabilty involved, which means you inherently assume chance and risk and odds. In order to make a substantial claim, you would have to pit pure chance against pure predeterminism.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by VaLoR 9 years ago
VaLoR
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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 
Vote Placed by AdamCW12 9 years ago
AdamCW12
Leonitus_TrujilloVaLoRTied
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