The Instigator
thedon22
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The world would be better if we were all the same.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,868 times Debate No: 36301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

thedon22

Pro

The world would be better if we were all the same people. Same beliefs, religion, politics, and just about everything else.
xXCryptoXx

Con

I ACCEPT!


I argue that the world would not be better if we all agreed on everything, and that in fact the world would be a whole lot worse.

You see, humanity advances when one thinks outside of the box.
When one rejects what others think, what other say you cannot do.

Here's an example:

Galileo lived in Christendom (Christianity ruled Europe most authorities were Christians, I believe the Pope was the ruler).

All Christians at the time believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, due to the Bible verse that the "Earth is unmoving".

At the time that verse was taken quite literally.

Galileo, who was also a Christian, rejected this idea and scientifically went on to prove that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun, despite being punished and ridiculed by those all around him.

Galileo rejected what everyone thought, and in return he made great scientific advancements.

Galileo, thought outside of the box.



What about the Civil War?

If we all agreed and thought that blacks were good enough to be treated like whites, then today they would still be our slaves. They would be granted no rights, they would still be punished harshly.

However, it started with some men saying "Hey, this isn't right". They were the ones that thought outside of the standard and eventually they got so many to join their side, and through will and force they won the Civil War granting rights to blacks.


However, we wouldn't have even gotten that far if everyone thought the same.

If everyone thought the same we would never get out of primitive ideologies and practices.

We would never move forward.


Humanity thrives off of those who say "Things need to be changed!"

Are they wrong sometimes? I'd say more than sometimes.

But for those times when they are right and for those times when we join together to push forward despite those who try to stop us is when we move forward as mankind!


Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1
thedon22

Pro

I would first off like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I claim that the world would be better if everyone was the same, I NEVER once claimed thinking outside the box was a bad thing, but we should take the same accepting approach to people who think outside the box for social advancement, much like the Rhodesians did during the final years of existence, they managed to still maintain sameness and familiarity and have one of the strongest economies in the world ($1 U.S= $1.40 Rhodesian). This unity strengthened not only their economy but their technology as well.

Having said that brings me on to my next point, difference is the ONLY reason to have conflict. Sigmund Freud agrees strongly with that belief as expressed by this article "Sigmund Freud and other psychologists hold the view that the innate instinct for aggression in man is the main cause of conflict. Thus, various causes lead to conflict." (http://www.preservearticles.com...)and the story continues:

"1. Individual Difference:
In society, men are not alike in their nature, attitudes, ideal, interest and aspirations. Due to this difference, they fail to accommodate themselves which may lead to conflict among them.

2. Cultural Difference: Culture is the way of life of a group.
It differs from society to society. The culture of one group differs from the culture of the other group. These cultural differences among the group, sometimes cause tension and lead to conflict.

3. Clashes of Interests: The clash of interests of different people makes conflict inevitable.
The interests of the workers clash with those of employers lead to conflict among them.

4. Social Change: Conflict also arises due to the difference between rates of social change. The change in the moral norms of a society and man's hopes, aspirations and demands leads to conflict .The conflict between the old and new generations is owing to social changes.
Conflict is an expression of social disequilibrium."

Psychologists and other well-decorated psychologists all agree that for every conflict, there is an underlying cause of difference. And you bring up the point of slavery and racism. Slavery would never have happened if there wasn't a financial or racial difference between the whites and black. They were taken as slaves purely to make money. So if everyone had no differences, the civil war would have never happened. Especially in the government, if they all agreed the war would have never happened. And if you're scared of advancement the Soviet Union not only put the first man in space, cloned a human being, and split the hydrogen atom while maintaining one of the strongest economies in the world, but they had a single-party government with high regulation.
xXCryptoXx

Con


To summarize my opponent’s arguments, he basically says that wars and conflict happen because people disagree with each other, but he does nothing to refute my arguments on how humanity needs conflict and difference to continue to thrive and evolve.



“we should take the same accepting approach to people who think outside the box for social advancement, much like the Rhodesians did during the final years of existence, they managed to still maintain sameness and familiarity and have one of the strongest economies in the world ($1 U.S= $1.40 Rhodesian). This unity strengthened not only their economy but their technology as well.”



Okay, so one place thrives because people agree with each other. I understand this, but in a realistic sense humanity never would have gotten to this point if we all agreed with each other. What we have here with the Rhodesians is the product of years of debating, different ideas, politics, conflict, ect. ect. till humans could finally agree on the best possible economy they could make.


Humans that always agree, will never progress because humans thrive on different ideas and opinions in order to evolve.



You’re example is actually just an example of one good place that could exist if every human agreed on its economics, but what if every human agreed that a dictatorship where people strictly punished for doing the slightest of wrongs was the best economy for the people?


Obviously it’s not, but because every agrees on it they will never evolve past it to true happiness and the freedom of being away from an oppressive government.


However, once one man says “we want freedom!” and others join in, even though conflict will soon arise, the fact that humans can understand and fight for what they believe in regardless of whether conflict arises is what is important. It allows them to truly know what the pursuit of happiness is. In a world where everyone agrees, humanity simply cannot thrive, for they can never improve.



I argue that if every human agreed on the same things then humans never would have evolved scientifically really due to primitive religion and beliefs.



Or what about flawed scientific theories? No one can say they’re wrong because everyone agrees that they’re right.



IF ONE MAN SAYS THAT 2+2=5 THEN HIS WORD IS LAW, IF IT WASN’T ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT 2+2=4!


Do you see my point now? Humanity evolves once one man proves that science is behind those religions and goes against what they believe, humanity improves when one man debunks scientific theory, and for goodness sake humanity improves when one man understands that 2+2=4 and shows the world that that is correct!


The only way your arguments would ever work that humanity would be better off if we all agreed and were all the same would be if humanity already had every single piece of knowledge in existence, which is obviously not a viable argument.


Debate Round No. 2
thedon22

Pro

thedon22 forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Okay, well good debate.

I win because my opponent forfeited all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by O.Z 4 years ago
O.Z
Jeez that last comment was racist, and I'm Caucasian. Why you are on Debate.org, which is supposed to be a progressive site, I don't know. Besides, even if everyone did like the same things and had the same beliefs and government, we would still find a way to kill each other. Like in the Roman Senate. Same government, same race, people go assassinated all the time. How about America? What about the 9% of us that are unemployed? The would probably turn to crime, given any race. This is a dumb argument. You underestimate man's violence. We are naturally violent animals, always looking for a reason to fight. Take the Call of Duty fan base. Have you listened to one of their games? It's a cuss-fest, a shouting match, and they all like the same thing.
Posted by bashisasi 4 years ago
bashisasi
I agree!

Imagine a world if we are all "White" that would be peaceful and harmonies,

Look around you, the dark skin and filthy blacks are always the cause of problems!! A society filled with mix color are bound for failures!
Posted by thedon22 4 years ago
thedon22
How is it worthless? If everyone had the same genes (which would eliminate genetic diseases) and was the same country (which would increase communication and productivity) the only problem would be viral diseases which could be easily contained. Unless you have some sort of other immediate threat that you could say?
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Well, I wont argue anymore because it's quite obvious I'm not getting through to you.

But I want to let you know that much of what your saying is worthless.

I'll let you go now.
Posted by thedon22 4 years ago
thedon22
and "sameness" does not kill. Viral outbreaks would be the only threat, but because everyone is the same and shares the same features, controlling such an outbreak would be much easier. It's psych 101. Basic building block of sociology.
Posted by thedon22 4 years ago
thedon22
All I'm saying is that if people's pheno and genotypes were all the same, we would have no genetic disorders and in case of a viral outbreak it would be much easier to contain.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
thedon22: "But I guess my masters in Bio-engineering is lying to me too, right? Or my psych professor?"

Yes, clearly they are! I would sue the institution that gave you your degree and try to get my money back!

Genetic homogeneity in a population almost certainly leads to extinction! Genetic diversity is a necessary fact of biological life. Sameness kills, eradicates!
Posted by thedon22 4 years ago
thedon22
If all our genes were the exact same we would have no genetic disorders. But behavioral we would also have more co-operation amongst people, so a viral disease could be easily detected and restrained. But I guess my masters in Bio-engineering is lying to me too, right? Or my psych professor?
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
So you believe that if we all had identical genes we would all survive, without problem? Clearly my college biology professors were lying to me when they said something different!

I'll have to refer them to your expertise on this subject.
Posted by thedon22 4 years ago
thedon22
If everyone had the same genes genetic diseases would not exist. And if everyone agreed on everything and everything was exactly the same there would be no violence. So then containing a pathogen would be incredibly easy. You seem to be the one spouting nonsense.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 4 years ago
PatriotPerson
thedon22xXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I will explain via the colon method. Agreements: Con, because, well, I agreed with him the whole time. Spelling and Grammar: Both, I didn't notice any impactful mistakes. Conduct: Both, they both behaved well. Arguments: Con, they mad more sense and had stronger evidence. Sources: Pro, because he used/mentioned one.
Vote Placed by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
thedon22xXCryptoXxTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have easily won this one...arguments from con were weak but it did it as pro had absolutely meagre arguments. forfeited..ff....resources were few but pro had some....spellcheck and grammar check CON.....
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 4 years ago
LevelWithMe
thedon22xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Lack of refutation. The Pro's account has been closed, because they've been trying to avoid a ban for attempted vote bombing and alternate accounts. I don't know why they keep trying.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 4 years ago
Themoderate
thedon22xXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had forfeited a round. I am giving this debate to CON because of the fact that CON made great points on we would be worse. If PRO had replied on his final round I could have reconsidered my votes, depending on what his arguments were. Debate goes to CON.