Woodbury, from TWD (See for further details)
Debate Rounds (4)
On balance, a city like Woodbury from The Walking Dead, in the situation it finds itself in, in the TV show (i.e. zombie apocalypse, complete anarchy), should continue existing for the good of humanity.
First Round will be for Acceptance, if you have any questions, please ask them in the comments before accepting.
Any issues that arise over the question of the debate itself will be the responsibility of the person who accepts this without asking a clarifying question.
For anyone that is not aware, Woodbury is a city where a group of survivors live. They are extremely well fortified and established, have electricity and the like. To keep themselves going, they scavenge, but they also attack and kill people for supplies. I am for the continuing existence of an establishment such as this, and will now begin to explain why.
WHAT'S THE ULTIMATE GOAL?
If one were to support the continuing existence of a city like Woodbury, I believe they would do so for one central reason. That is that if Woodbury is successful, they will be the building blocks of society. They will lead the way to a new world. In the world of The Walking Dead, life is rough, to put it lightly. People have a very short life expectancy, and both life and death are terrifying and painful ordeals. Far, far less than half of the characters that the show has had on are still alive. If the situation continues at its present rate (straight up anarchy), the human race is screwed, to put it mildly.
Woodbury can remedy that. As Woodbury grows and becomes stronger, it can become the basis, as I said before, for a new civilization. Once this new civilization is ushered in, there will be much more peace around the globe. Obviously, even in today's civilization, there is not total peace. But the odds of being murdered are much slimmer in this world than they are in The Walking Dead. Woodbury can be the bridge back to normalcy, and therein peace for all.
I assume most of you are thinking about all the people Woodbury has to kill and steal from to achieve this goal. I hope we can all see that they are necessary casualties for the good of humanity. As I said earlier, at its current situation, the human race is screwed. A world of anarchy with roaming tribes of survivors will eventually lead to the extinction of humanity. What Woodbury is doing is saving all of future humanity. Not only future humanity, but many others around the globe. The only people that get hurt by Woodbury are those in their vicinity. Everyone else can benefit from the gradual re-stabilization and re-birth of civilization that Woodbury would bring.
Or we can let all of humanity suffer in the agony of a zombie apocalypse.
IN THE SHORT RUN
Outside of the fact that civilization can eventually be re-born with Woodbury's continued existence, there are other reasons one should support them.
Here's a hypothetical, to demonstrate my point.
There are two groups of people, each with 10 people in them.
Both groups are near starvation, their supplies are very low.
Both groups decide to leave each other alone. They think it wouldn't be right to rob another group and possibly lead them to die of starvation. However, since both groups have limited food supplies, they both end up dying off of starvation and other related causes.
One group takes the other group's food. The group that was robbed dies of starvation and other related causes. The group that did the stealing is able to survive, now having enough food to function properly.
So, in conclusion, option a gets 20 people killed, whereas option b gets 10 people killed. Clearly, option b is what Woodbury does, and clearly, option b is in the interests of the greater good. This hypothetical can be applied to more than just one group too. It can be applied to every roaming gang that Woodbury encounters. Supplies lightly spread out over a large group of people are less likely to lead to survival than a large amount of supplies concentrated on one group of people.
Another way to look at it, it'd be like giving 20 people $1 for lunch, or one person $20 for lunch. Between the two options, the best outcome is one person getting lunch.
Again, look at the survival rate of the characters on the show. The group of people that TWD follows generally do not take things from other people. They are not raiders. And we see how they turn out. If nobody is willing to get down and dirty like Woodbury is, then all groups of survivors will suffer the fate of the main group on the show.
THEY DO OTHER STUFF, TOO
Woodbury isn't just a killing machine. They also take people in when they can. So on top of the fact that they're actually ensuring the survival of the max number of people through their actions exemplified above, they are also directly saving lives by bringing people in.
Admittedly, they won't let people leave, but that frankly is in their best interests. The odds of death are so much higher outside the walls of Woodbury that it would be almost criminal to let someone leave. You're pretty much committing passive murder.
However, that is a secondary issue, and we don't have to agree on that to see the overall good that Woodbury represents.
Thanks for reading.
OFF TOPIC ARGUMENTS
Much of what my opponent responds with is not related to the resolution of this debate. For example:
"No one gained from the feud between the groups. Woodbury's aggressive stance actually slowed progress because the feud killed woodbury's members and occupied it's resources. The continued fighting led to the cities collapse."
If the resolution for this debate was something like: "The actions Woodbury took were good", then bringing up Woodbury's aggression leading to their downfall would be legitimate (sidenote, Michonne was actually the initial aggressor). However this debate is over whether or not Woodbury's continuing to exist would be good for humanity, and this is off-topic.
My opponent puts forth the idea that since Woodbury is run by a psychopath, they can't rebuild a civilization. Why not? Given the resolution of this debate, we're assuming that the leader's psychopathic attributes will not actually lead to Woodbury's downfall.
I can't see any reason why having a psychopath at the helm would stop the re-birth of a society. What about him being a psychopath will make him be like, "No, no wait a second! This is looking too much like a civilization! We're gonna have to stop it right here."?
In fact, there are plenty of psychopathic traits that would be helpful in the growth of Woodbury.
"The study of the psychopath reveals an individual who is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse or empathy for their actions. They are generally cunning, manipulative and know the difference between right and wrong but dismiss it as applying to them."
Being incapable of feeling guilt would be very helpful for the leader of Woodbury when he needs to get down and dirty to keep the city going. Being cunning and manipulative will help get the most out of any person or situation. While you probably wouldn't want to be an enemy of a psychopath, being on the same side as him is very helpful.
Thanks for reading.
JackFritschy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Due to forfeit by opponent in Round 3. S & G - Tie. I was close to awarding this to Pro due to the organized structure of his presentation but decided against it due to Con not really making any mistakes in spelling or grammar. Arguments - Pro. He successfully argued how in such extreme survival scenarios, such anarchy and acts of stealing or other feats for surviving is a necessary thing which will eventually allow for the development of a more civilized society once again. I understand where Con is coming from, but in such extreme scenarios, fighting to survive - whether against zombies or other groups of humans - is a necessity. There were valid arguments made by both sides, but Pro ultimately swayed me to his side due to the realistic nature of his arguments. Sources- Pro. Con failed to use any sources to further strengthen his points, whereas Pro did. I would recommend Pro say, "Extend Arguments" rather than "End Debate". This is the common practice.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.