The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It's now time to seriously start thinking about next generation farming.

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: 12/22/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 119579
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




We have arrived at a human evolutionary point where next generation humans could and should be produced and reared in a controlled environment.
Obvious advantages to such a system are:
1) Removal of all the burdens of child production from women.
2) From day one. Conditioning and educational responsibility shifts to a state controlled curriculum.
3)Stricter control over character development of next generation humans.
4)Stricter control over population growth.
5)Screening and selection benefits


1. Hardt and Negri write in their book Empire in 2000 that Technologies of control and social production are the means by which Empire legitimizes itself
The source of imperial normativity is born of a globalized biopolitical machine. In the genesis of Empire there is a rationality at work that can be recognized. This is a rationality that situates us at the heart of biopolitics and biopolitical technologies.
2. Hardt and Negri write in their book assembly in 2017 that the Empire uses the fog of war to make impacts like oppression and violence inevitable
An ideological fog that clouds myriad forms of violence, Making them all but invisible to external observers, And even sometimes to those who suffer them. Some extreme forms of violence, Spectacular acts of brutality.
3. You should resist all forms of the Empire

1. A NGO should produce and rear humans in a controlled environment
2. Solves all of the Pro's claims while avoiding the Empire
Debate Round No. 1


Empire is a concept to which we apply mental imagery and come up with an assumption. An NGO. Is just the same.
Which do we assume is the more sinister?
Concepts vary as a result of individual programming. (Currently problematic)
The reality is; social organisation must be collective and State is more representative of the whole
NGO's represent minorities and profit. ( Let's negate monetarism).
All areas of production and education would require precise and strict State control anyway.


To address the claim that an NGO would just become part of the Empire. Hardt and Negri would never conclude than an NGO used in direct opposition to Empire would be bad. However for the sake of this debate so it does not get confusing, I will not be extending the Counter Plan. There is no offense on the Counter Plan. New analysis in the Pro"s next round justify new answers made by me next round

Lets go to the Empire debate. This is where I am winning this debate.
They concede that Technologies of control and social production are the means by which Empire legitimizes itself
That was Hardt and Negri from their book Empire. This means that when The Pro says that we should utilize tech to indoctrinate and the fact that it will be a state controlled program prove that they are a unique manifestation of the Empire.
Next they try to spin that the state is more representative of the whole so it would be a good idea to trust the state however that is exactly what the Empire would say. The Pro"s claims are lies and false fronts.
They also try and say that Empire is just a concept to which we apply mental imagery and come up with an assumption but again that is exactly what the Empire would say the Pro knows that I am on to them and they are going to outed as the Empire and they are doing everything they can to cover their tracks.
The Empire is shadowy figure that controls all through a mixed constitution.
The Pro then conceded that the Empire is the root cause of all evil in the world which means that if you want to be able to solve for their own claims you should reject them as the spread of the Empire moves us farther from those goals.
Lastly they concede that you should be rejecting them for being part of the Empire
Debate Round No. 2


1) Con exceeds limits.
2) Con fixates on H & N.
3) Con also fixates on Empire
4) Con does not attempt to address the basis of the debate.
5) Con does not attempt to address any of the practicalities of next generation farming.
6) Con subverts.
7) Con seeks to introduce their own agenda.
8) Con's agenda would seem to be fantasy based.
9) Con's fantasy is typical Tinseltown us and them propaganda.
10) Con is the product of modern media indoctrination.
11) Con is "Empire" but doesn't realise it.


You are voting Con in this debate for 3 reasons
1. They concede that you should reject them for supporting the Empire
2. They concede that all of their impacts are inevitable in the world of the Empire this means that they don"t get any advantage of doing their plan
3. They literally double turn themselves"""" They say that I am spreading propaganda and that I should lose because of that but remember their entire plan. One of their advantages to doing it is state controlled education that is actual propaganda.
I will answer their 11 new points that they brought up
First they say that I exceed limits however they don"t read an impact or a voter to me exceeding limits means that even if I did the Pro didn"t provide a reason to reject me on it, Hold them to what they said don"t make arguments
You can group points 2-7 They say that I don"t address the debate and that im only fixated on the Empire. This is what the Pro messes up and simply does not understand in this debate. They are a unique manifestation of the Empire and that we should not be indoctrination people from birth into the Empire that was literally the story from the first round. I don"t need to debate them on their claims from round one when they drop the piece of evidence that says im controlling the root cause of the Impact debate. This means that any negative thing that you could stop by voting Pro is actually a reason why you are voting Con because those impacts are inevitable in the world of Empire. Even if you think the evidence wasn"t good enough on the root cause question you"re going to weigh it anyway when the Pro does literally zero work on this question, Don"t make arguments for them. The Pro failed to understand that nothing they said matters when I control the impact question.
Look the Empire was not my own agenda it was a disadvantage to doing what the Pro proposes that subsumes their impacts
8 That"s exactly what the Empire would say. They want you to think the Empire is fake because if you think it is fake then there will be no reason to weigh how the Pro effects the Spread of the Empire when you believe it fake. See through the Empires lies.
9 This is not propaganda this is exactly what Hardt and Negri Critique the Pro is calling for a state controlled indoctrination program that is literally propaganda
10 No the Empire controls the Media, I want to break the people way from indoctrination from the state
11 Lol how can I be the Empire if you say it is fake"". . Which is it am I the Empire or is it fake. . I am not the Empire the Empire was hidden until I brought it to light

Look in the end if you are not buying the Empire stuff your voting Con on the double turn.

They themselves say that propaganda is bad" those are their words not mine and their plan causes indoctrination and propaganda
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
500 character limit? What on earth?
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
I'm not going to argue this in the comments

You probably should have put a reason to reject me in the debate then
Posted by Sonofcharl 3 years ago
There is a 500 character limit on this debate.

So Con cheats also.

Con is not to be trusted.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 3 years ago
Just out of curiosity have you read any of Hardt and Negri? Hardt and Negri indeed do conclude that the use of NGO's is against the will of the multitude. They do not conclude however that NGO's used directly against the state or in this case Empire is bad. Hardt and Negri are talking about NGO's like the U. N.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago

Then the NGO just becomes the Empire.

Indoctrination is the biggest Con to pro's plan. I hope you bring it up.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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