It would be preferable to live in a hunter-gatherer society rather than an agricultural one

My PointsA. Food SurplusWith the coming of agriculture came food surpluses. What this meant is that DESPITE disease and the occasional natural disaster there would always be enough food to keep the population going. Food quantity did not reduce quality because at the very start of agriculture farming was at its purest form in history. Food grown in the fields of prehistoric farms would have been no different than the food growing in wild fields at the time. This food surplus increased quality of life, population size and started early trade which led to the diversification of goods and services. B. Animals Early agricultural society began the demystification of animals. [1] This led to easier work loads for farmers and other workers through the use of pack animals along with animals used for supplies, food and drink to further increase food supply and diversification. These animals further led to an increase in technology and gave societies with animals an edge over those who did not. [2] This would include sheep for wool, cows for milk and horses for transportation. "Animals that provided milk, such as cows and goats, offered a source of protein that was renewable and therefore quite valuable. The animal’s ability as a worker (for example ploughing or towing), as well as a food source, also had to be taken into account. Besides being a direct source of food, certain animals could provide leather, wool, hides, and fertilizer. Some of the earliest domesticated animals included dogs (about 15,000 years ago), sheep, goats, cows, and pigs." [1]C. TechnologyAgricultural society causes an explosion in technology that leads to advantages in survival and increases in standard of living. If we compare agricultural societies to hunter-gathering ones we see a much higher rate of technology leading to a higher standard of living. Take the 18th century British Empire compared to the Aboriginals of Australia. [3] The technology gap was enormous. The Aboriginals had very little technology, very few domesticated animals [2] and a much smaller, more spread out population leading to a lag in technology and subsequent conquering by the British. Technology gives civilizations advantages over other causing them to remain independent and much harder to dominate and conquer.D. StarvationHunter-gatherers were often subject to malnutrition or starvation. "There are also a number of accounts of hunter-gatherers who were starving despite the fact that they were eating large amounts of very lean meat. This is sometimes referred to as "rabbit starvation" in North America since it historically involved the reliance on lean rabbits by hunter-gatherers." [4] If hunter-gatherers did not get the exact right balance for their diet - and their diet was vastly influenced by nature and natural events - they would become unhealthy or even starve. In agricultural society, food surplus, trade and diversification of goods would prevent this. Contentions C1. FarmingMy opponent claims farming is time consuming, fragile and a waste of energy. However, I can't imagine that packing up your entire village and moving it every few weeks is any less time consuming or a better use of energy than farming in a single place. Also, food surplus during good years prevented catastrophe during poor years. Hunter-gatherers were also subject to drought and poor seasons just as farmers. However, farmers did not have to continuously move during bad seasons, they could use their surplus to wait the bad times out. Therefore, farming is actually superior during times of hardship than hunter-gathering.C2. Food QualityI already addressed this earlier but I will address it again. Quantity at the very start of agriculture would not decrease quality. Today, farming may decrease quality due to the sheer volume and methods used but in the time being debated, quantity would not effect quality. C3. DiseaseMy opponent correctly states that domesticating animals caused the spread of disease. However, what my opponent failed to mention is that this in addition to living in tighter quarters actually vastly increased human resistance to disease. This resistance would give societies an edge over societies who did not possess it. A great example is the Aztec Empire. [5] The Aztecs were an early agricultural society with very few domesticated animals and low disease resistance. This would allow the Spanish to cause the collapse of the Aztec empire through the spread of disease. In this way, the agricultural society has a surviving edge over the society who did not.C4. SocietyThere is nothing showing that very early agricultural society was UNequal. Women would care for the farmers and while the men farmed but there was nothing showing a dichotomy in equality between the two groups. Also, the development of government from agriculture would eventually lead to advanced empires, civilizations including our own in the US. Government increased organization, communication, created law and facilitated order. [6]Living in an agricultural society was superior to living in a hunter-gather society.Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond [3] http://www.downunderonline.com...[4] http://www.enotes.com...[5] http://www.aztec-history.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...