Civlization

So my opponent is trying to defend hunter-gatherer societies, but he admits that they have been converted into the new capitalist life style. When people are converted by a more dominant authority we again affirm the idea of natural selection; the strong conquer the weak. This happens in nature anyway so my opponent gains no ground as this is not a harm associated only with civilization. My opponent talks about jobs and preferences, however I contend that it is thanks to the modern civilization that we have MORE diverse jobs than just farming, hunting, and gathering. Remember my argument that civilization is the progression of mankind, you can easily apply that here. Due to civilization I am able to diversify the job market, my opponent assumes the only choice is a desk job, however in any college their are many careers offered such as law, marketing, and diversity. Furthermore my opponent has made the claim that a desk job is dull and boring, but with no evidence that the rest of the world feels this way. In fact their are many people who enjoy the simply life of going to desk job and typing away in a simple life style, as opposed to doing primitive labor which my opponent suggests is better. My opponent defines a hunter-gatherer society as egalitarian, as having a sustainable economy. This means as of right now you can turn my opponents entire case against him as clearly these people have some form of structural system and thus do not live in the abstract that is the state of nature. Clearly they are in a civilization, so even if you buy all my opponent's arguments, just turn them all against him as you clearly see hunter-gatherer societies are civilizations themselves. My opponent even states that these societies are civilizations as he states, "which emerged early in civilization". My opponent is again repeating arguments against the Status Quo which is completely irrelevant to the debate topic where my opponent must prove ALL civilization is bad, a burden he has accepted. Furthermore even if we buy that in Capitalism there is a major competitive market to succeed; I contend it is this fact that has lead to the progression of mankind. After all, isn't it the goal of a doctor to cure cancer to help himself? However, in the process of benefiting himself he does a great service to the entire human race. Thus you clearly see competition is a positive and thus another turn on my opponent. My opponent keeps saying civilization has to be tied with nature yet he never tells you WHY. I contend, as I did earlier, humans are the dominant species on Earth and thus have the right t do as they see fit. I repeat, NATURAL SELECTION, the FOOD CHAIN, my opponent cleanly drops these concepts and thus you see it is in nature for animals to be oppressive. Thus my opponent gains no ground with equality arguments as even in a lack of government there is still oppression. F My opponent argues that egalitarian societies are "skilled" jobs; Definition of skilled: having or showing or requiring special skill wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn I am more than capable of going out fishing with any rod just like anybody else, but is everybody able to be a rocket scientist? Clearly we see that jobs in civilization are more skillful than any primitive alternative my opponent requires. Furthermore my opponent keeps saying 14-19 hours in a week, but he never manages to establish how that is a good thing. There are many people who love their job and wish work for hours on end by choice. Thus, this deprivation of excitement comes from primitive societies and thus another turn on my opponent's case. My opponent makes an abstract opinion by saying that civilization is unsustainable, I look all around me and I see society is still around, it will still be around when I go to sleep tonight, and thus you clearly see it is sustainable. My opponent ares that over half the people in the world make less than a $1 a day, however it is only because of our great civilization that everybody even has access to a job! Turn this argument against my opponent, were it not for globalization and outreach their would be even fewer money earned as their would be less demand for laborers; thus we clearly see more jobs come from more civilization another turn. All arguments about social dominance. .. again Natural Selection which is in every animal, not a harm associated only with civilization. My opponent says we serve artificial institutions who don't care about us; why then is there such a thing as EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. Clearly this is a false statement. My opponent says "green technologies" is a double-edged sword, however I see no fault in a solar panel. The solar panel is not evil or morally corrupt and it is not going to kill me anytime soon. Again, the death of the world argument, remember my opponent cleanly drops my argument that the world will eventually be blown up anyway by Gamma Rays or the sun exploding. You clearly see that this is not a civilization-harm only, and remember my turn! Technological advancement is the only that that will be able to stop this! Furthermore nanotechnology will make fighting microscopic diseases even easier and thus they are an ultimate benefit, another turn. My opponent's entire case is contradictory as I've proved, and even if you don't believe that remember voters my opponent has not proved why CIVILIZATION is bad, but only why the Status Quo is bad. The Status Quo is not civilization and even if you believe hunter-gatherer societies are better, my opponent still defines them as the early strides in civilization, thus you clearly see that my opponent admits Civilization is better than a state of nature. Clear Voters: 1. My opponent's entire case has been turned. 2. He has only proved why Civilization is good and why backwardness is bad. 3. He never proves why Civilization is bad, only his biased opinion towards Capitalism. 4. He never has direct harms that only are derived from Civilization, remember natural selection would occur anyway in a state of nature and thus you still have oppression. 5. My opponent has given you absolutely no justifiable reason to vote for him other than his own biased opinion.