Words

I will be giving a series of arguments against Con's position. The Argument of Technology: Technology exists if and only if words exist. Con is arguing that words ought not to exist. Therefore, con is arguing that technology ought not to exist. "Technology," in this argument is defined as "the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science. " Now Con seems to agree with the "Argument of Technology," but replies that technology is a "double edged sword" so to speak. Con says that technology that technology can be either extremely beneficial or extremely harmful; but this isn't an argument against technology. For instance if I were to say, "when you fire that rifle,Johny, be sure the recoil doesn't hit you in the face;" I'm not telling Johny not to fire the rifle, in merely telling him to proceed with caution. The same applies with technology, warning that it had a good and a bad side is not telling someone not to use it. Without technology every thing ever invented and mass produced that has tremendously benefited humanity, and everything that ever will be invented and mass produced that will benefit humanity is nullified. It is Con's burden of proof; Con must prove that humanity is better off without any technology. Technology is as good as the ethical code that it is used with, which brings me to my next argument. The Argument of Ethics: A codified ethical code is created and transmitted from person to person and generation to generation if and only if words exist. Con is arguing that words ought not to exist. Therefore, Con is arguing that ethics ought not to exist. Take religion, just as an example. Without words, religion would not exist; something that over six billion people have. Now even though religion gives many people people purpose, a road to truth, and a moral code; con may argue that humanity would be better off without it. This however would not defeat the argument since my argument encompasses all ethical codes and their transmission. Con is arguing against all ethics, whether secular or not. Con has the burden of proof, Con has to prove that humanity would be better off without an ethical code. Ethics requires that human beings grasp concepts, concepts such as "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," and so forth; which brings me to my next argument. The Argument of Concept Formation: All cases of words with meaning are cases of concepts. Con is arguing that words ought not exist. Therefore, Con is arguing that concepts ought not to exist in the human mind. When I say the word "tree," I'm not referring to any specific tree, but rather treeness or the essence of what it means to be a tree; I'm referring to an abstract concept. I quote the great philosopher, Ayn rand. "Concepts and, therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition"not of communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the consequence, not the cause nor the primary purpose of concept-formation"a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but still only a consequence. Cognition precedes communication ; the necessary pre-condition of communication is that one have something to communicate. (This is true even of communication among animals, or of communication by grunts and growls among inarticulate men, let alone of communication by means of so complex and exacting a tool as language. ) The primary purpose of concepts and of language is to provide man with a system of cognitive classification and organization, which enables him to acquire knowledge on an unlimited scale; this means: to keep order in man"s mind and enable him to think. "[1] It seems Con is arguing that we ought not to form concepts. The burden of proof lies on Con to show why we shouldn't. Summary: I have given three arguments, The Argument of Technology, The Argument of Ethics and the Argument of Concept Fornation. In order for my opponent to win he must either show why all my arguments are false and then erect arguments of his own, or prove why we shouldn't have any technology, ethics, or concepts. . http://aynrandlexicon.com...