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

Utopia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DebateAllTheWay has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 111049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Rasmit

Con

I will argue against having utopia, you will argue for it. I will let you go first.
DebateAllTheWay

Pro

Imagination all of your problems vanquished and replaced with everything you have always dreamed of!
(Special thanks to the author of this debate and Have Fun!)

To clear things up there are two significant things to note:

1. This debate is about whether a Utopia is good or bad not whether is exists. Now I am (pro) for Utopia's and my opponent is (con) against Utopia's.

2. As Cambridge Dictionary states a Utopia is:
a perfect society in which everyone is happy
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org...)

With that out of the way, I want to explore the main argument that is likely to come from con.

which is: Utopia's haven't been reached. My answer: sure, no one is perfect here on earth, however this debate isn't about whether the perfect Utopia exists, but rather whether Utopia's are a good thing. In other words, don't mistake communism and other worldly failures for a Utopia.

Simply put, Utopias are what we all strive for. Though there may never be a Utopia, Utopias are the perfect and happy versions of us that is irrefutable better than the chaotic and imperfect current world.

I hope you vote that a perfect and happy world is better than what we have now.
Debate Round No. 1
Rasmit

Con

A utopia is indeed defined as previously said. However, having one is almost impossible in the first place, since human nature is full of arguments and opposing sides (look at the site you are on right now). Most of our accomplishments are because of a fight or challenge, both of which require someone to end up unhappy unless there is a person who remains the same level of happiness before and after losing. Examples include the Space Race in its entirety. It was just a country and union arguing about who's better. Look where we are now, a ship and car already sent to Mars. Also, psychology states that being angry makes you stronger for a side, improving your argument. That is a big boost for technological advancement since all competitors in a market want to be the best. That gives us frequent improvement. The education system is similar, especially with awards. It gets very competitive during the high school valedictorian placement. One of my teachers said she won valedictorian by hundredths of a point GPA. All of this is a form of competition, which as stated before, never ends with everyone happy (usually).

While it seems like I changed the subject, I simply proved that while achievable, it is unmanageable, which is why it is bad. Here are some more arguments that should get us out of the gray.

Utopia is bad because if you were to try to manage it, you will end up with people more unhappy, as that is how most arguments go. To attempt to maintain utopia would require too many resources. Sadly we are not in a computer game such as Minecraft where resources are practically infinite. We have limited time and materials that need to be focused on more important areas of research and pioneering, such as space exploration in case of human evacuation/overpopulation and medical treatment creation i.e. cure for cancer. A utopia would simply be in the way. Another flaw of utopia: specialization. Imagine this: Einstein in a utopia where he had to work as a farmer to maintain equilibrium in jobs. He would, of course, get free time, but his main area would be farming. He also had to learn at the same rate as everyone, instead of boosting through physics and eventually proposing special relativity. Do you think anyone could do a hard labor job AND work in a completely new area of research at the same time, among other things like sleeping and eating? And depending on your extremity of utopia, he wouldn't even be allowed to pioneer. Where would we bo now? Thomas More might not even be alive because the wheel, fire, and other basic innovations wouldn't exist. It is like the campaign video of FreeMarketAmerica (look it up on youtube). While they are not intended to be discussing utopia, they do come across it quite neatly.

I understand that it seems out of topic, but it is hard to talk about how utopia is bad without talking about how it can't be achieved and is impossible or not.
DebateAllTheWay

Pro

My opponent's arguments are great, but they just aren't perfect...pun intended.

Before I jump into responses I want to first get back to the most important part of this debate:
That we are debating whether a Utopia is good or bad, not so whether it exist or is doable by the world right now.

(1)
Now in the first paragraph Rasmit agreed to the definition that a Utopia is the ideological version of our society with perfect order and complete happiness, however he goes on to talk about how the current status of this world is competitive/greedy, basically the Hunger Games. In other words that there is no perfect Utopia right now.
My response: Straw man's Fallacy. This argument isn't related to what we are talking about as I stated earlier. I agreed and still agree that the current world is and could never reach a Utopia, but that is not the debate, as that has nothing to do with whether a completed Utopia is good or bad. Therefore the argument of whether it is achievable should be dismissed.
Rasmit even acknowledges this when he says "it seems like I changed the Subject" -Rasmit. He later states that Utopia's are unmanageable and so this new argument is on topic and applies to this debate and therefore Utopias are bad, however he never made the connection how in this perfect world (Utopia) how bad things would arise, rather he returns back to how corroded our current world is and how our current situation wouldn't allow for the creation and maintenance of a Utopia. Again this is not our debate.

This leads us to the second section/paragraph response:

(2)
Basically here Rasmit states how Utopia's in our modern world couldn't be managed and he gives the examples of Minecraft, Einstein as a farmer (which I thought was awesome! Although I would like to point out that the definition of Utopia is perfect happiness not making everyone farmers ;), and St. Thomas More/FreeMarketAmerica. While these examples complete the task to show that Utopia's are hard to reach in the modern world, it is still avoiding our debate to whether Utopias as defined and agreed to are the perfect order and happiness of society. This means that in a real Utopia there is no problem with management and all are satisfied (so no greedy competition is warranted).

The Utopia even though far, is what we all strive to achieve. The Utopia's perfect happiness and order is certainly a wonderful thing for all of us to reach for to make our imperfect world a better place.

In the end as the Paraprosdokian goes: "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad"
Rasmit talks about the tomato as a fruit which I agree (Utopias are hard/impossible to archive in our current world), but the debate is, as Rasmit forgets, about the fruit salad (whether a Utopia, to be achieved, is a good thing).
Debate Round No. 2
Rasmit

Con

Appeal to Ridicule in the end, Argument from Fallacy in the entire post. The first is obvious so let me explain the second. First though, let me try to remove the fallacy in the first place. The first part of my argument where I seem to argue about why it doesn't or can't exist is actually me giving some background to why it would be a waste of precious materials to try and maintain one. By doing that, I establish that a Utopia would be bad because it would be wasteful. And since ever.one has to be happy, who knows what you might have to do? I would be mad if my dad bought (this wouldn't ever happen) a Lamborghini Aventador but I wanted a Tesla Roadster. How would you fix that? Now to show why you made a fallacy. Basically, you made a conclusion that my conclusion is fallacious because I had a so-called fallacy. While you look at my material, you spread bits of the "fallacy" everywhere making everything fallacious (think of spreading mud everywhere).

Now for argument. In a utopia, it would require that all material and emotional desires are granted. This would, in turn, make people unhappy when it is established that you can't marry your best friend's wife or husband, or that you can't go to Pluto for your birthday tomorrow. When provided with an illusion of infinite happiness, humans would try to test the boundaries, only to find that there is no infinite happiness, which would create a revolt against the government because the society would believe the gov. was lying and tricking them. As we all know, that doesn't end well.

I will save a lot of my argument as I am realizing I did too much last time.

Here's a little extra portion:
When you make an argument to analogy, you create a small fallacy. First of all, it is almost an ad hominem, second, you chose a bad analogy. You chose to compare knowledge to knowing utopia is hard or impossible to achieve, but you state the application (aka wisdom) as whether or not it is a good thing. The two do not have an applicational correlation. Here is a table that shows the analogy.
A is knowing B is not C
X is not putting B in Y
Here is your statement.
R(asmit) knows U(topia) is not P(ossible)
R forgets not putting it in Y(Salad)
Therefore, R(asmit) does not have X(wisdom)

That is ad hominem and creates a faulty analogy. I would recommend looking up how a perfect argumental analogy works to understand my point.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
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.

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