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

S!h!o!u!l!d W!e A!L!L G!O B!a!c!k T!o T!H!E S!T!O!N!E A!G!E?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DebatingismySport has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 98695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




It would make us appreciate the nature more and not destroy it. We should all become friends and stop attacking others online and have nice meals at the table.


The exclamation points beckon me. On behalf of Deoxys and humans, I'll accept this debate. I argue we should stay in the Technology Age. First, some definitions.

[The resolution is "Should we go back to the stone age?".]

Should: Implying that there are benefits to the Stone Age

Go back: Revert to an earlier stage; the Stone Age. We are not time travelling, so our research on animals are still available, we just probably won't use the knowledge.

Stone Age: According to wikipedia: "The Stone Age was a broad prehistoric period during which stone was widely used to make implements with an edge, a point, or a percussion surface. The period lasted roughly 3.4 million years, and ended between 8700 BCE and 2000 BCE with the advent of metalworking."

In the stone age, humans mainly lived in huts, and used bow and arrows, as well as axes.

I'll begin my argument Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Seems like debating isn't his sport. Reverting society to the Stone Age would mean we use bow and arrows instead of guns, making hunting trickier, although still possible. Pro claims it would make us appreciate nature, though I do see where he's coming from, lions would be a bigger problem if we're living next to them.

Another part of my argument is that, with the absence of factories and easy hunting, human competition for resources would increase, and we wouldn't be friends as easily, contrary to Pro's desires of war free. Sure, we wouldn't be insulting each other in flame wars, but we'd instead be physically attacking in real fights.

Another thing: As far as I know, an average person walks about 4 miles an hour (this is just a guess.) but I know humans aren't as fast as cars. It would take longer to go places.
Posted by Repcon 2 years ago
Pikachu i need you to submit your argument for our debate
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Unless I see convincing arguments from Pro, I'll only state a few points. But I think my arguments will come from an obvious perspective, considering that I love computers.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.