Civlization

I will refute my opponents contentions in order and then go big picture, humble voter. "Now for the kill"-my opponent is making a direct threat on my personal life 1. My opponent tells you that civilization is violent and corrupt, however my opponent has still not proved in any way why a state of nature is a BETTER alternative. Remember my argument about natural selection which goes cleanly dropped in my opponents last refute, even if we were in a state of nature their would be even more moral injustices, because all my opponents arguments just prove that humans have the capacity to be bad. Were it not for the just checks by law provided by government these injustices would become even more rampant, which is why humans avoided the state of nature to begin with. Thus turn this argument against my opponent. My opponent agrees that we may be killed by natural causes, his only counter being the time span. However, their is for example the fear of the super volcano under Yellowstone National Park which may erupt at any moment, and cause the entire world to be flooded with ash. This would cause world-wide famine for years. My opponent's oil argument is answered by himself, "green technologies", a field that is becoming very popular in the near future and will most likely solve any fears of oil. However, Yellowstone may go boom at any moment, a gamma ray may hit us and destroy out atmosphere at any moment, a meteor may hit us at any moment. All these things can occur at any given time and place and thus humanity is doomed with-or-without civilization. Further more my opponent completely drops my turn on this argument last round, remember the only reason we will be saved these crimes is because civilization has advanced us to the point where we can identify these threats and start thinking of how to stop them, thus another turn on my opponent. 2 and 3. My opponent now is trying to skew his argument by saying that now he wants quality in social interaction, however his initial argument was that society has no social interactions at all. My opponent conceding that their are social interactions answer his argument. Further more their are members this site who have had a mass amount of debates, and further more my opponent's only standard for communication is that we see, hear, and talk. I repeat! Web cam chat rooms have become very popular that allow for seeing other people, hearing them talk, and being able to talk back in person. My opponent cleanly drops my web cam argument in his last refute and thus you can extend this as a reason to vote for me; remember also my turn that because of web cam and civilization we are able to talk to even MORE people and we are able to even host web-conferences, increasing the ultimate benefit of people-thus turn this. My opponent is also contradicting himself, because he says 300-1,000 friends is a bad thing, yet he is clearly advocating for community ties. 4. Let's make two arguments here, first of all using the same analogy, because of the Internet it is like I can go to 5,000 cafï¿½s in one night and pick the girl I like the most and chat her up AND THEN meet her in real life, it's called online dating a very popular trend. Further more my opponent is saying the status quo is bad, yet A. he is willing to have this debate online clearly showing he benefits from this suffering and thus he is contradicting, and B. Even if the status quo is bad my opponent must prove that the first alternative is a state of nature, and that the state of nature would be BETTER than the current status quo, which he has not done. Further more I repeat, Natural Selection, the powerful dominate the weak, it is in the genetic structure of all life on Earth, a state of nature would not solve for this. 5. My opponent is arguing Communism, Communism still has a government and a sovereign state and thus it is still civilization, my opponent is merely making an argument that benefits my side, he would like a civilization that is not modeled after the status quo, another turn. Further more I repeat. .Natural Selection. .. and further more voter all the luxuries you enjoy are BECAUSE of all this social hierarchy. Further more my opponent is willing to say that we will defend private industry and the state, thus contradicting himself. My opponent says its unsustainable, but if the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE will defend it, which is what my opponent says, it is clear that it is for the better 6. He changes his views. .. no argument. .. "primitivism" has the suffix "ism" meaning rule by, so he is still advocating for a state and sovereign body which is civilization, he just wants a backward country. Turn that against him he is on helping my side. My opponent offers you his opinion on a multiple subjects yet his own argument says the entire world would defend the state and society and thus the entire world trumps his own opinion. I am not arguing that civilization will not. .. after an eternity crush the planet. .. I am arguing that natural causes are going to kill us first BEFORE that. Thus, the harm of human extinction is not solely based on society. Further more think of examples like Small Pox, it was only stopped, because of a mass effort by the CIVILIZATION in the modern world working together. Without this the human race may have very well gone extinct, showing civilization preserved us and it is also capable of working together fort he common good, another turn. My opponent has called me a conservative, I agree, my opponent is saying I'm arguing anti-liberal. Liberals don't argue for a state of nature, they argue for the most liberties and the least government intervention, also the idea that humans are inherently good. John Locke a prominent liberal and, (people argue founder of Communism), argue that a state of nature is not beneficial, because of a lack of higher authority to appeal to. Thus affirming my case as the idea of natural selection extends again. My opponent tells you about people in the Kalahari Desert* that don't beat their children and never speak harshly, in the U. S. we call that child-abuse and we have laws against that. .. no real ground gained here. 7/Framework. .. *Sigh*. .. .my opponent has gone on to rambling a communist argument. I repeat Communism is merely an opposite form of government than Capitalism. It is still a GOVERNMENT and thus it still is a CIVILIZATION. My opponent remember first round accepted the burden of proof to prove that ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE BAD. All arguments pertaining to communism being good only contradict my opponent as he is essentially admitting that their are some forms of civilization that are good. Thus, turn my opponents entire case turns against him. Further more Capitalism is only Natural Selection in a more moral sense, as at least we do not inhumanely slaughter all those who get in our way. It happens in nature every day, in a state of nature abuse would still happen as the strong trump the weak. My opponent has offered you no reason to vote for the idea that CIVILIZATION is bad, but only that Capitalism is bad. I have refuted all his points, remember Natural Selection which my opponent concedes to, so thus it would happen anyway in a state of nature thus all his points only strengthen my case. Keep in mind: My opponent never links his evidence to his websites, he only says random names throughout his cases, so thus he can't have the source vote on those grounds. Further more all my opponent's videos are irrelevant as he has not introduced the value of any them into the debate and he can't just leave a video to do all his arguing thus he gains no ground off those videos, you may disregard them.