Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

I'm going to take the first two thousand words to address your obnoxious little terminology foolery, and then I'll get to answering your "true" intention, even though by then I will have proven that effort to be entirely unnecessary, and show why, on your own terms and in every way possible, your argument will ultimately fail. Me- "If we didn't have communication then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence." You- "Oooookay. You're saying that's a bad thing?" Response: Yes. Yes it is. If you don't think it would have been a bad thing had humanity never come into existence, then you have some sort of weird existential death-wish thing going on. "Earth is like a cell." Really? I can't wait until we reproduce and split into another Earth. That'd be awesome. I mean, that's what you meant, right? That's what a cell does, and so it wouldn't be at all dickish of me to say that, right? "It's a tiny fraction of the universe, and humans are nothing but its parasites, like parasites on a cell." ...OoooK.... "For every one good thing we've done for this planet, we've done many many many harmful things." Yes but they've been very good to us, now haven't they? And we're part of the world? Right? "And in case you didn't notice, the topic of debate is clearly whether VC is harmful to THE WORLD." Yes, it's clearly that. What is less clear is the meaning you want to imply. "Let me repeat: THE WORLD." You say this word again. I do not think it means what you think it means. "Try reading the topic a little closer next time small fry." Try defining the terms in your opening instead of making me conjecture next time please. Just because you think that you've insinuated something doesn't mean jack unless I am aware of the definitions you're using. I apologize to you for assuming that "the world" meant the people who live in the world- a reading which I think is very reasonable given the metonymy of it. You would not say "The White House is Harmful to Common Americans" and then try to tell me that it was obvious you meant the building itself, would you? After all, it's the "World Health Organization" and the "World Organization Against Torture" and the "World Organization for Animal Health," and not the "Parasite Health Organization" as you would prefer it. That's my response, then, to what you accused me of in the last round. But wait, (as they say) there's more. Let's take a short trip down memory lane to your opening argument: "Would the world be a better place? I say yes, without a doubt. Talking, more often than not, creates an overload of unnecessary, and often harmful, information. We humans insult each other A LOT...especially nowadays. The youth is especially obsessed with placing others lower and lower on the totem pole in order to gain popularity and praise. It's sick, quite frankly." OK. This is basically your entire argument. And... it appears you're talking about people. Yup... just people... not the planet, not animals, not anything other than people. It astounds me that, even knowing that what you wrote gave every indication that you were talking about people, you felt justified in claiming that I had failed to read your topic title. NOW I'll actually address what you say you want me to address and I'll show how it's OBVIOUSLY not what you wanted me to address originally. However, it's difficult to say what you want to address. You claim that verbal communication is bad for "The World" and you have described "The World" as a "cell" and we are like "a parasite" which I suppose I can interpret as your belief that humanity is not part of "the world." And so if we aren't part of this cell... if we're just a parasite, as you suggest, then WHAT exactly is this "World" that you're talking about? Does it consist of every living thing that is NOT us? That doesn't quite seem fair. Does it consist of all non-sentient beings? Plants and things? Not even plants? Well if that's the case, then you've picked a bizarre topic, because you don't mean that "verbal communication" is bad. You mean "people" are bad. Because I guarantee that, regardless of any sort of verbal communication, people will always find ways to express ideas to other people, and sometimes those ideas are going to be dangerous. So verbal communication has NOTHING to do with it and I am left very confused as to why you picked this one thing as the object of your ire. It's like saying "Barbecue Sauce is More Harmful than Beneficial to Pigs"... well, no... Eating pigs is harmful to pigs. Barbecue sauce is just delicious. Because you are blaming an ancillary for the entire problem, your argument fails.