It is possible for humanity to achieve a utopian society.

Thank you for your quick response once again. In an attempt to avoid finishing my term paper I will respond now. I will quickly note that my opponent has attempted to change his resolution from: It is possible to achieve a Utopian society. to: It is theoretically possible to achieve a Utopian society. It is evident that he meant to argue in the realm of reality by his definition in his R1 for achieve, having defined it as such: "Achieve- being able to obtain through work and/or effort" Notice he did not say 'being able to consider the possibility of'. Anything is theoretically possible. It is theoretically possible for a Flying Spaghetti Monster to rule over the universe, but that does not make it a fact in reality. At this late stage of the debate I will not allow this change and will continue the argument as it was originally drawn up. Claims: 1. People are not very complex and can thus be easily pacified. 2. Social acceptance will cease to be a factor for people because all people will be treated equally. 3. Economic validation will cease to be a factor because everyone shares in economic growth. 4. Electing Barack Obama shows the world is becoming more accepting. 5. The violence and destruction will be worth the potential for Utopia. 6. Globalization shows that the world can get along on an equal footing, and can be a tool in achieving this Utopia. Rebuttal: 1. This is clearly not the case. People are very complex beings and cannot be broken down to just a few simple pacification and distraction techniques. As I mentioned earlier, and that my opponent failed to refute, is that what some people want is fundamentally at odds with what other people want. The creation of a socialist utopia, for instance, is fundamentally at odds with the creation of a capitalist, free market utopia. Some people want to marry someone of the same gender, while others want the whole world to believe that this is wrong and should not be allowed. Some people want the ability to have the choice for abortion, others vehemently deny that anyone should have that ability. The point here is that people cannot be easily pacified, and that such a policy by the government constitutes a form of oppression because in giving some things to one group, they are taking something from another. This policy can also have many adverse effects, remember the old Roman adage "Give them bread and circus and they will never revolt." The problem arises when a government becomes corrupt or oppressive no one will stop them because the masses are just comfortable enough to remain complacent while they watch their civil rights disappear. 2. My opponent has not shown how he plans to forget the past several hundreds of years in which the very opposite has occurred and make everyone get along. Human nature ensures that interest groups will form that will be in opposition to other interest groups. a) At the world level, many times those interest groups will be comprised of a single race, leading to racial discrimination by one group against another. b) Religions will always be at odds, since a key part of religion is the fact that they believe they have the correct answer and everyone else has it wrong. This will make equality even more unlikely if one religion obtains more power than another. c) Social class is especially evident in a socialist society. The most obvious division here is between the ruling class and the rest. More class issues will inevitably arise when people realize they are contributing more to society than others, while still receiving the same amount of benefits - a doctor saving lives receives the same benefits as the McDonald's employee flipping burgers. This will create tension between such groups, not to mention decrease overall output of society. 3. See responce 2c. Additionally, in socialist societies generally result in the development of black markets. This results in some having more than others - a result of people's desire to have more than others. 4. My opponent clearly has a strictly western education and point of view. Black leaders and heads of state have existed numerous times in the past in other nations. The same applies to women leaders and heads of state. This shows that black and women leaders have been accepted in the past. The world is not becoming more accepting, U.S. culture is. The election of Sen. Obama is not indicative of a worldwide movement toward acceptance and toleration, but a western reluctance. 5. a) Modern technology as it is, it is difficult to believe that such a massive and prolonged world war would not result in the use of nuclear weapons. As nations are torn down through violence and force, nuclear weapons will inevitably fall into the hands of irresponsible people willing to use them. Early use would likely be followed by more and more use, resulting in much death and destruction. b) If nukes were not used, and large coalitions were successfull, these new large nations would have to oppress smaller nations and their citizenry to force them into the 'new world order'. Hardly a fanciful beginning to a perfect Utopia, wouldn't you say? 6. Globalization shows precisely the opposite of what my opponent suggests. He supposes that globalization could be an important tool to reach his global utopia. Unfortunately, one of the elements of globalization (and its key motivating factor) is inequality. Companies can earn much more money by paying its workers overseas much less than the same laborer in North Carolina. Globalization is built on inequality and exploitation. This would not be a good starting point for a global Utopia in which all people are equal and share in the benefits. Conclusion: My opponent has argued that people are easily pacified with 'bread and circus', a key element to achieving a Global Utopia. Such deception makes it much more likely that a government will become corrupt and oppressive - and that no one will stop them. He admits that nations would not willingly join such a movement. He also claims that the potential for Global Utopia is worth the required violence and destruction. This could be reworded to say 'Oppression and forced annexation is worth a potential creation of an oppression-free world government." Clearly the ends do not justify the means, especially since the ends are not guarunteed. He does not address the fact that some interest groups would inevitably have more power than others, resulting in inequality. Since my opponent has either not responded to my points, or responded ineffectively, I hope that you would vote Con. I would like to conclude by thanking Pro for a very interesting debate. I see that you are almost brand new to the community, so I would like to extend a warm welcome.