The Instigator
Arhmard_halieru
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

21st century brings more harm to our society than Potentials benefit presently

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: 10/6/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 118471
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Arhmard_halieru

Pro

21st century brings more harm to our society than Potentials benefit presently
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello.
A somewhat obscure statement.

A society is a collection of organisms and a century is a period of one hundred years relative to the orbit of a planetary body around a star. In this respect a century is what a century does and a century has no direct impact upon a society.

Most societies tend to function instinctively. That is to say, That notwithstanding catastrophic natural effects most societies will continue to function much as they always have, Irrespective of any given time frame.

"Our society" and more so, Individual human beings or sub groups within our society, Although functioning instinctively at a base level, Because of their advanced levels of cognitive ability have been able exceed the limitations that a slow rate of evolutionary development imposes on other species. To this end our society is greatly affected by how we manipulate matter and as a consequence how we have been instrumental in an exponential increase in the rate of evolutionary progress, Or more specifically an accelerated rate of material development.

What I am implying quite simply is that things are as they are, Not because 100 years has made any great difference to the base function of human society, But because there is an underlying inevitability in the process of material development and also how this process impacts upon our society. Therefore the concepts or notions of harm and benefit are irrelevant when viewed realistically and only relevant to a society in it's current situation and with it's current observations.

However. If we regard the proposition in an historical context and make comparative observations with previous centuries. I think it is fair to assert that human social events were no less turbulent. The great wars of the 20th century being obvious examples.

Ultimately we can only really judge by experience and a 58 year old has experienced society in two centuries, Whereas an 18 year old has only known the 21st century. I would therefore suggest based on my experience, That potential benefit or harm is appreciated in much the same way today as it was in the 20th century.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing how Pro substantiates and expands their proposition.
Debate Round No. 1
Arhmard_halieru

Pro

Get to your point please
Sonofcharl

Con

This is a three round debate, With only one round to go and Pro has not yet offered any evidence to back up their proposition or made any attempt to address my first round presentation. I therefore see no point in developing my argument further.

Is Pro out of their depth here or are they going to surprise me in round three with an amazing 10000 word treatise on human society in the 21st century?

As for my point:

1) Pro's opening statement is not only obscure in it's presentation but also grammatically inaccurate. Their failure to elaborate in round one, Allows me to make good use of these shortcomings by questioning how a particular moment in time can have a direct effect upon social function.

2)I attempt to point out that neither society or time stand still and that everything is constantly in a flux of evolutionary progress and material development, Hereby suggesting that there is probably an inevitability to any social situation at any given moment in time. This further suggests that how we perceive these changes is only relevant to ourselves at that given moment in time and has no greater relevance beyond that.

3)Historical comparison is a simple premise.
Compare current day society and the harms and benefits we might place upon ourselves with events that occurred in previous centuries. Are things worse or better or do things have a certain similarity?

4)I was merely suggesting that perhaps I was in a better position to judge Pro's proposition, Simply because I have had the benefit of existing in two centuries, Whereas Pro has only had first hand experience of the 21st century.
Debate Round No. 2
Arhmard_halieru

Pro

Arhmard_halieru forfeited this round.
Sonofcharl

Con

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.