Civilization

1. 2. So let's look at my opponents case step by step: "Hierarchy"-My opponent never says why a structural system of power is bad; in fact turn this against him I contend this power chain is a good thing. In a state of nature as argued by John Locke the fact that humans have no higher authority to appeal too in the case of injustices is what led them to establish government in the first place. It is in fact humans that set up the hierarchy in the first place with their own consent. (Most people in the modern world are not disobeying the rule law in a huge fashion). "Social Stratification"- Not true in the case of Communistic societies; In Capitalistic societies this is to differentiate the people who work hard and prosper and the people who are lazy and not necessarily as hard working. The idea of rewarding the good and demoting the bad is not a negative thing, but in fact the main driving force behind the progression of man. "Mass Amounts of Suffering"- In regards to humans, Civilization provides for aid such as to prevent Genocides which are caused by Man's inherent lust for control and obliteration of non-conformers. Remember in a state of nature their is no higher authority to appeal too and thus atrocities such as genocides continue on, because their is no hierarchy to stop it; thus turn this argument. In Regards to non-humans and the earth: Animals (non-humans) do not make civilization nor do they have any claim to any rights or entitlement bestowed by it and thus this doesn't matter. Humans are more important than any "x" animal as we are the dominant species. The Earth again is governed by us an as the dominating species we are allowed to do as we see fit; further more this argument is not always true because their currently in reality reservations and activists preventing these damages. The only way they are able to voice these opinions is thanks to civilization and thus you turn that argument. Sustainability-Have humans progressed from mere cavemen? Yes. Do we have long-lasting governments? Yes. So this opponent is not true. Poverty- If capitalism is caused by government their is a clear contradiction here, because capitalism argues for prosperity. Further more in the case of major world super-powers their is a very clear high standard of living and I don't believe the U. S. government is "poor" Capitalism-? OK so we are constantly pushing and challenging ourselves to strive and prosper. .. wow we're bad. Wars- Inevitable, even without a governing body their would still be wars even without government. Their are always groups with different interests and ideas that will inevitably conflict. Mass society, overpopulation- Damn, we are living longer as the DOMINANT SPECIES ON EARTH and we have a huge number of people. Damn, we're progressing and utilizing a larger work force for the ultimate prosperity of man. Damn, What would we do without a large society! Oh right, we take our role at the bottom of the food chain so the wild animals can kill us, Yay? Thus in conclusion more than half my opponents case is contradicting; a lot of it is merely the positives of society. Remember no matter what you believe if you accept even one of my arguments you must vote Pro as my opponent has said that civilization will ALWAYS have these affects. He must further prove that these are bad things which is why they are not useful. If you accept one of them has a good thing then you must vote Pro. Thank you for your time.