Civlization

Now that we have some clash going let's start flowing down my opponents case. 1. My opponent is telling you that some "x" thing from civilization will cause massive deaths, however first of all he offers you no example of what this "x" thing is; further more the idea that an asteroid will hit us is a possibility that can occur any second of any day. Thus, regardless of what my opponent says you clearly see with or without civilization we would be killed anyway. However, let me take this one step forward and turn this argument against my opponent. Humans by constantly progressing in civilization will one day discover the means and tools to destroy this asteroid that may impact us and it is very well possible that we will be able to space travel far away before the sun swallows up. These feats will only be possible because of Civilization. 2. So first of all my opponent says their is no community in debate.org, however first of all it is very easy for people to get to know other people on this website through discussion and debate. I can easily infer that my opponent is an anarchist and thus I can understand his beliefs, hence I know something about my opponent. While I may not know my opponent's real name I can remember him by his user-name. Essentially, removing the notion that we are a society of strangers. Further more in a modern world such as the present, Internet interactions are the wave of the future. Remember my Facebook and MySpace examples of how we can interact with people and friends. If my opponent wants visual interaction then just go to the thousands of online web-cam chat rooms. Further more businesses have hosted online conferences around the world with multiple people thus clearly showing we can work together online. Further more even if you don't buy this my opponent gives you clear examples of hunter societies that have a community, thus contradicting himself. Lastly, my opponent cleanly drops my refute last round of how I can talk to my teachers and friends by name in a society and thus you can extend the point over that civilizations are not creating a society of strangers. 3. So now my opponent is basically trying to bias this debate in is favor by wanting "quality". Well sir, quality is based on how friendly you are in these chat rooms. This is not to say your a bad person, but if people don't like you then people may not want to talk to you. However, let me ask my opponent doesn't real social interaction involve knowing "jerks"? Thus isn't it clear at the instant that we can meet jerks online that we are having a more diverse social interaction? Besides let me turn this argument once more against my opponent by stating that in the modern teen world their many social groups that are unwilling to interact with other people or may be too shy to do so. However, when you go on a chat site you have no idea who you may run into so it is this level of randomness that broadens people's ideals and beliefs and it is this high level of interaction that we prepare ourselves for the reality where we need to be able to interact with a wide variety of groups. Further more "anonymous" people online are merely trying to conceal their identity; how is this any more different than slipping in to a cafï¿½ one day and having a friendly conversation with a stranger, or picking up a random girl for a one-night stand. 4. OK fine let's accept that civilization is based on hierarchy, (I'm sorry all you Communists out their). Doesn't the natural world already function on the idea of natural selection? Doesn't the mighty predator at the top of the food chain dominate the animal at the bottom? Even within a select breed you will always have examples of how males fight each other to claim right to a select female, with only the strongest prospering. Thus we clearly see that in a state of nature their would still be hierarchy regardless as is evidently clear around the natural world. However, again turn this argument against my opponent; it is through our modern advancement that we can make hierarchy less brutal. For example I can go work under my boss without fearing that he/she will kill me, and I can also try and woo that special someone even if I'm competing with somebody else, without having to go into a life or death brawl. So civilization can make natural hierarchy less brutal. 5. Yes, I agree that over-time certain states have gotten bigger and more powerful by conquering, however again look at any map. The U.S. could easily invade most of Africa and conquer it, yet it has not done it yet. Thus we clearly see super-powers have different agendas then just conquering. Now then about his cooperation examples. First of all after the Cold War if you believe Russia and the U.S. have a friendly relationship then you are clearly misguided. Most super-powers are constantly competing for more and more power and dominance and it is through this that humanity ultimately progresses forward at the accelerated rate that it is. A concise quote by Bismarck states, "States don't have permanent friends, or permanent enemies, they have permanent interests". Using Bismarck quotes we see that no countries have "hand-in-hand" relationships. Further more we TRADE with small states we don't go and forcibly take it. That would be conquering which we clearly do not do. Trading is a mutually beneficial agreement that benefits all and thus clearly my opponent gains no ground with this argument. Further more even if you don't buy this argument just extend the theory of natural selection. With or without civilization we would still be tempted to take that which we do not have, thus this harm is not only civilization related. 6. Yes, I "mindlessly" follow the "stereotypical dogma" of civilization. Damn my ignorance! How dare I like my PlayStation, computer, library, public education system, hospitals, sports programs, media program, television! How dare I like all the luxuries that are bestowed upon me by a constantly progressing race of humans that have evolved from primitive savages to an advanced race! How dare I aspire to become a top dog person when I grow older and aspire to become some rich executive or host of my own television show! Yes voters, pick the "sanity vote", but in reality what is sanity? Sanity my friends, is civilization, progression of human society, sanity is Pro.