Challenge Match: Schrodingers Dog vs MemoryShock: "Stop The Madness! People Are Dying"

The topic for this debate is "Ethnic and Regional Conflict Between Humans Are Inevitable."

Schrodingers Dog will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
MemoryShock will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.


[edit on 10/29/2008 by semperfortis]

Thank you semperfortis and our esteemed judges for your invaluable contributions to this debate.

"Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."
I will be arguing the "pro" position.

____________________________________________________________


Ladies and gentlemen this is not a complicated subject. My opponent and I are sure to delve into many aspects of human nature, sociopolitical dynamics, and historical facts. But at the end of the day, no one can refute the simple facts of this debate.

And the primary fact is this: Not one second has flowed through the annals of historical time within which humans, in some region of our planet, have not been engaged in mortal conflict. Such is the natural condition of our humanity. Indeed, such is the dynamic of all living things.

This is an indisputable fact. This applies from the most basic of instincts such as competition for procreation to the most complicated geo-polical based wars. Humans always have and always will be engaged in conflict, be it interpersonal, ethnic, or regional. Dare I say most of us have to also deal with our internal conflicts as well. In fact, humans are not only in conflict with each other but also with nature and their environment.

It is a matter of record and statistical certainty.

For what is statistics? Usually a small sample from which we extrapolate probability. The smaller the sample in relation to the whole, the more uncertainty and margin of error exists with the predicted probability. In the case of human history we have the greatest statistical sample of all. The recorded cumulative behavior of humans since the beginning of time up until this very moment. Thus in this case the sample is actually the whole thing. No margin of error, no uncertainty, we as humans are where we are today as a the direct effect of the behavior of billions of humans over thousands of years worth of causality. For every man and woman who has ever lived has played their small part leading to the present human condition. Hence the statistical certainty.

I am interested to see if and how my opponent is going to address this, for the fact that humans have ALWAYS been engaged in conflict is beyond dispute. And, as I have described above, it is a matter of certainty that this behavior is inherent and not an accidental "blip" of history.

Of course our lives are not one endless conflict, though there are some who would argue otherwise. And many Ethnic or Regional conflicts are avoidable and often avoided. But that is not the topic at hand. The topic is that conflict is "inevitable" not "avoidable."

But I do not wish to further argue against myself, thus I will keep this opening statement short and await to see which direction my opponent wishes to take this debate.

I would like to thank semperfortis for his dedication to this forum and the moderation of this debate. I would also like to extend thanks to Schrodingers Dog for agreeing to this debate and look forward to a challenging and informative battle. And any thanks would be incomplete without acknowledging the reader, for whom we all do this for.

Originally posted by scrhodingers dog
thus I will keep this opening statement short and await to see which direction my opponent wishes to take this debate.

I would also like to thank my opponent for allowing me to initiate the direction of this debate.

That said, let us examine the debate topic to ascertain exactly that we are discussing…as I think my opponent is being a bit too liberal in his interpretation.

Conflict, as I will understand it, refers to violent conflict, as in war, and to some extent racial and hate crimes when applied to a microcosm of the implied debate topic.

‘Ethnic and Regional’ denote a ‘more than one’ inclusion of individuals and as such will be referred to, primarily and as the default implication of the topic. It would be ridiculous for me to argue ‘internal human conflict’, especially in the context of ‘ethnic and regional’. As well, it would be ridiculous for me to argue a cessation of ‘mano-a-mano’ type physical conflicts as there are too many variables involved within the day to day behaviour of each and every individual for there to be much relevance. I will not interact with ‘human conflicts’ regarding the environment either.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Not one second has flowed through the annals of historical time within which humans, in some region of our planet, have not been engaged in mortal conflict. My Emphasis

In short, I will accept schrodingers dogs’ interpretation of the term ‘conflict’ to be heretofore indicative of a ‘mortal’ nature.

'Inevitable', as I will understand it, refers to and is inclusive of the entirety of human existence. To say that ethnic and regional conflict is inevitable for the rest of our human existence is a hefty statement; an absolute that seeks to dissuade any attention to the recent trend of human interaction in first world countries (which we arguably didn’t have until after the Industrial Revolution) as well as the evolution of our understanding of the human physiology and psychology.

We have come a long way from the inter European conflicts of the Medieval Era to the current European Union, in which all European Nations are cooperating with each for the benefit of each other. We have seen the regional differences being fought within the United States of America, from Manifest Destiny to the Civil War. We are still witnessing the regional differences within the Middle East.

What is the common denominator with the above paragraph?

All conflicts are based in our burgeoning global civilization. It is no mystery or even a question that the Native Americans did not have the technology the Europeans did when the Eastern Hemisphere finally made it over here. The tragedy that befell the Native Americans was resultant of this difference in technology.

We will not live in a future where this type of inequality will persist.

For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward.[1] My Emphasis

Throughout this debate, we shall look at historical facts, as my opponent has stated, “The recorded cumulative behavior of humans since the beginning of time up until this very moment.”

And we will look at the historical record objectively, and focus on the trend towards collaboration between ethnic and regional groups as the world became smaller. Indeed, it is difficult to refute such a trend when the American Government called for tolerance in regards to the Muslim community in the wake of September 11th. We as a ‘civilized’ society comprehend the fact that a distinguishing set of physical characteristics do not necessitate psychological and personality traits.

In the past, we could not say that with any kind of straight face.

Throughout the course of this debate, we will examine the human animal and its’ physiological make-up, as my opponent has suggested that it is human nature to be at odds with other humans. While that may be historically true, history does not absolutely predict the future. We shall examine other traits of the human animal and delve into other aspects that are seemingly contradictory to the survival instinct of our species as defined by our current understanding of evolutionary biology (Darwinian Selections).

We shall also look at current technological trends as it relates to the encouragement of civil interaction and the anxiety ridden topic of the ‘New World Order’.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Globalization had its’ first major victory in the European Union. Was the Union undertaken to encourage conflict in a very divisive region of our world?

The quick and easy answer is ‘No’.

And that particular trend is what will take us into the future. To say that we as a people are being led into a world where irrational conflict will be a thing of the past is actually a foregone conclusion. I ask only that you open your mind in this debate beyond that which is current and begin to understand the implications of what every facet of our current technological drive, in every industry, is geared towards.

I too will omit a few characters in this opening, as I have yet to see anything from my opponent that shows how he can be so certain of what will occur in the future in light of the obvious globalization trend.

Ladies and Gentlemen…Ethnic and Regional Conflict Will Inevitably Become a Thing of the Past.

Schrodingers Dog, the floor is yours.

Allow me address a couple of my opponent's statements from his opening post.

Conflict, as I will understand it, refers to violent conflict, as in war, and to some extent racial and hate crimes when applied to a microcosm of the implied debate topic.

‘Ethnic and Regional’ denote a ‘more than one’ inclusion of individuals and as such will be referred to, primarily and as the default implication of the topic. It would be ridiculous for me to argue ‘internal human conflict’, especially in the context of ‘ethnic and regional’. As well, it would be ridiculous for me to argue a cessation of ‘mano-a-mano’ type physical conflicts as there are too many variables involved within the day to day behavior of each and every individual for there to be much relevance. I will not interact with ‘human conflicts’ regarding the environment either.

continued

In short, I will accept schrodingers dogs’ interpretation of the term ‘conflict’ to be heretofore indicative of a ‘mortal’ nature.

I am happy to restrict the definition of the debate topic to "mortal conflict" between humans. However, all other variations of conflict which humans undertake are not irrelevant to the argument. As I described in my opening statement, we as humans are almost defined through our conflicts in ALL of their forms. Ethnic and Regional conflicts are but the most destructive manifestations of this behavior, but by no means the only ones. This is important to consider as wars of course do not break out on their own. They are initiated and fought by humans and their natural predisposition to conflict, from the internal to the global.

To say that ethnic and regional conflict is inevitable for the rest of our human existence is a hefty statement

Hefty but accurate. As I pointed out in my opening statement, it is statistically as certain as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. In fact, one may say humans being in conflict with each other is as certain as the sunrise. True enough, in a few billion years there will be a day when the sun will indeed stop rising, it may take just as long for humans to stop being in conflict with each other.

My opponent envisages a utopian future for humanity, perhaps along the lines of Star Trek, but there is NO evidence that we are even evolving in that direction. In fact the evidence points to the fact that humans are increasingly more violent and warmongering, and not the other way around.

List of Wars

The list comes with this sobering description:

This list is incomplete and, quite possibly, will never be completed.

Our current conflicts:


en.wikipedia.org...:2008-08_ongoing_conflicts.png

Indeed the frequency of our Ethnic and Regional conflicts is increasing, and unfortunately, there is no reason or evidence whatsoever to make one believe that this trend has an end in sight.

So once again I state that for the purposes of this debate Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are not only Inevitable, they are a virtual certainty.

Why?

Well, for many reasons actually. One of them is surely human nature. Defining all the philosophies and interpretations of the concept of "human nature" is definitely for another time and place as it would take volumes do so. I could go on forever on the human traits of greed, desire, fear, etc. For the purposes of this debate I will say the following: Societies are made of human beings, thus our behavior is either dictated by our "nature" or some external force. Thus unless one believes that "God/Aliens made us do it," our cumulative actions throughout history can only be a result of our nature.

But somehow just to say "human nature" seems like a vague and unsatisfactory explanation.
There must be a trigger to awaken this human predisposition to conflict.
Let us see if we can approach it from a different angle.
When did humans begin what we today call "warfare?"

Beginning around 12,000 BC, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. The bow seems to have been the most important weapon in the development of early warfare, in that it enabled attacks to be launched with far less risk to the attacker when compared to the risk involved in the use of mêlée combat weaponry. While there are no cave paintings of battles between men armed with clubs, the development of the bow is concurrent with the first known depictions of organized warfare consisting of clear illustrations of two or more groups of men attacking each other. These figures are arrayed in lines and columns with a distinctly garbed leader at the front. Some paintings even portray still-recognizable tactics like flankings and envelopments.

wiki

So it seems that humans were in conflict even before 12,000 BC, but it was the introduction of new technology that enable them to enter the age of "modern warfare." We have already established that the number of wars has been rising throughout history and we obviously know that technology has improved at the same time. Thus it is not unreasonable to deduce that as warfare technology improved through the course of history, human willingness to enter into Ethnic and Regional conflicts has also increased. Essentially, the better we can kill each other, the more we try to kill each other. As technology is bound to improve, we have yet another indication that Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable

Still, it feels like there is something missing. We as humans have "conflict" in our nature, and technology gives us the means to engage in "conflict" in ever increasing frequency and efficiency. But we are still missing that environmental "trigger."

It could not be more simple.

It is SCARCITY

Scarcity (also called paucity) is the problem of infinite human needs and wants, in a world of finite resources. In other words, society does not have sufficient productive resources to fulfill those wants and needs.

scarcity

Let us say that there are four people sitting at a dinner table and there are at least four apples on that table, usually humans can sort that out without conflict. However, same four people with one less apple on that table and voila, scarcity. Scarcity doesn't even have to be real when it comes to human conflict. Wars are often fought over perceived or potential future scarcity of resources. The fact though is inescapable, scarcity leads to conflict. The earliest humans realized this, their ensuing fear and survival instincts led them to develop:

Social Contracts

Social contract describes a broad class of republican theories whose subjects are implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order.

social contract

So our ancestors at some point realized that there was safety in numbers. They also realized that sharing resources avoided conflict and increased everyone's chances for survival. And for our ancestors this arrangement must have been an effective and successful one.

At least for a while.

The same "social contract" which increased early humans' relative safety also set the stage for a population explosion. With it came ever increased scarcity and conflicts between "societies" multiplied.

Governments, ethnic groups, religions, political ideologies, are all about the same principle. They are ALL different ideologies upon which to base a given society's distribution of resources. Essentially, once there are four people and three apples, a means of distribution is required along with an ideology upon which to base that distribution and a form of government to distribute it. Civil wars are about who controls the apples within a society, "external" wars are about getting more apples or protecting one's own apples. Religions pacify those with few or no apples whilst taking parts of their few apples for their trouble.


So let us recap. What is the evidence for humans to remain in a perpetual state of conflict:

1. Statistical Certainty
2. Human Nature
3. Technology
4. Scarcity (resources)
5. Population growth
6. Social Contracts

What is the evidence to date that humans are about to make an existential u-turn and rise above all the above factors and shed all their conflicts.

1. The hope for a Star Trek utopia.

I pray my opponent has something more tangible than hope to defend his position in this debate.

As it stands, there should be no doubt that "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."

I will be using my 24 hour extension.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Ethnic and Regional conflicts are but the most destructive manifestations of this behavior, but by no means the only ones.

However, as far as this debate is concerned, the only conflicts we are interested in are the “destructive manifestations” of ethnic and regional conflicts.

My opponent supplied a list of war, indeed, his only effort was to supply the list. While a momentary glance at the list suggests that humans are indeed very violent, there is no context established, there is no explanation for the occurrence of these wars.

In fact, if we look through the list, we can ascertain a commonality between them, that of the conflict occurring within ‘Non First World Nations’. Let’s think about that for a second and as well apply that notion to the trend that is currently underway.

Second and Third world countries do not have the amenities that many of us enjoy in a First World Nation. The majority is forced to make do with whatever resources are available and/or rely on the charity of First World Nations. Then there is the minority that initiates conflict…why? Well scarcity, as my opponent has stated. The fact that inequality has imposed a need for some people to initiate or respond in an aggressive manner is to be expected.

This is the entire basis of my opponent’s argument and is completely devoid of any attention to our cultivation of technology, for a more efficient production of energy and a more efficient transportation of goods. Which is where the world’s economy is situated and thusly the world’s social equilibrium. We are currently in a period of human history where we are making the transition from ‘dirty’ energy production to ‘clean’ energy production. What will this do?

It will make it much easier for weaker economies to integrate a consistent energy source which will in turn allow for the production of goods and services to allow self sufficiency for these weaker economies and in turn an integration into the global playground of the trading of goods and services.

There are really only two options for third world nations and they are either to successfully stand upon their own ability or be integrated into a larger entity…much like the current European Union. Recall, that much of the European Union is now in a cooperative mindset, as opposed to the many regional conflicts that has plagued Europe’s history.

But are we counting on the good sense of technological advancement and the goodwill of its’ purveyors to insure a cessation of ethnic and regional conflict between humans?

Well, in a sense yes. You see, cooperation is not predicated upon parasitic relationships. Money and trade will be required. As well, we can apply the economic term ‘fiduciary responsibility’ to this scenario. Is it in a corporation’s best interest to initiate war for profit?

Well…it depends on what your business is and who is backing you. The U.S. government started aggressions in Iraq, presumably for two different goals.

-To spread democracy to an oppressed nation (deposing Saddamn).
-To insure a puppet government for the future acquisition of fossil fuels (which we are transitioning away from but still require for the status quo.

Now, what happens when a clean renewable resource has made fossil fuels obsolete?

The Status quo will be satisfied as to eliminate the need for a regional conflict.

What happens when archaic governments have been converted to that of a more citizen centric process (Democracies, Republics, etc)?

There will be a more universal understanding of social mores and values.

It is inevitable for the human species to reach a global society devoid of past contrivances once we are capable of providing an adequate quality of life for everyone.

We can see this inevitability in action when we look at other current industries, such as the medical and entertainment industries. Pharmaceutical companies, while motivated by profit, as all corporate entities are, create new drugs for the assuagement of many of our current human ailments, be they physical or psychological in nature. The entertainment industry creates faux aggressive and violent interactions for the people to interact with…as a means for venting of what my opponent has termed ‘human nature’.

You see, the human animal isn’t primarily designed to engage in conflict. It is concerned with conflict when there is no option for the appeasement of a physiological concern.

My opponent successfully shows that human began their warmongering ways at about 12,000 BC. What my opponent fails to illustrate are the many tactics for ‘persuasion’ that our current First World Nations employ readily and often, namely economic sanctions and media propaganda. I will, if time and opportunity are available, continue this vein in my next post.

My opponent is correct when he says that the ‘scarcity’ in our very distant ancestors allowed for the creation of ‘social contracts’, or the practice of altruism. What my opponent fails to acknowledge, however, is that this trend has persisted to this day as much as the perceived human need for conflict. [1]

Indeed, large corporations donate millions of dollars a year in some cases for the benefit of the society in which it has been created. These same corporations are beginning to look all around the world for not only business opportunities, but charitable opportunities as well.

And it isn’t just multi-national corporations that are looking for the betterment of all humanity. It is the people as well.

Live Aid was a multi-venue rock music concert held on July 13, 1985. The event was organized by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure to raise funds for famine relief in Ethiopia. Billed as the 'global jukebox', the event was held simultaneously in Wembley Stadium, London (attended by 82,000 people) and JFK Stadium, Philadelphia (attended by about 99,000 people). On the same day, concerts inspired by the initiative happened in other countries, such as Australia. It was one of the largest-scale satellite link-ups and television broadcasts of all time: an estimated 400 million viewers, across 60 countries, watched the live broadcast.en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">[2]

My Emphasis; We as a people may just be concerned with eliminating 'scarcity'.

We as a population, when we are satiated, have no reason for conflict. And the future trend is towards renewable energy and a more efficient means of production. It will take time, but there should be no doubt that once we have ‘civilized’ and increased the quality of life in any given region, then we may turn attention to other regions by which to cultivate a human society devoid of wars based on cultural differences (as a global culture inherently carries with it a universal culture) and regional differences (as clean energy will insure goods production and will be available).

I decided to wrap myself into the above presentation, as I felt it was necessary to showcase different aspects of my opponents argument. While history tends to scream ‘Conflict of an ethnic and regional nature are inevitable', it fails to showcase the fact that if a human is satiated, then there would be no conflict. And the trend is clear that we are gradually integrating the nations and cultures of the world into a common goal. While conflict seems to be unavoidable today, the trend actually suggests that conflict, as defined by the debate topic, is doomed to become archaic. This is not based in merely ‘hope’ as my opponent has conveniently discarded my position as, but based on economic and even social concerns.

The US military is planning to win the hearts of young people in the Middle East by publishing a new comic.
It will be based on "the security forces, military and police, in the near future in the Middle East" and is being produced by US Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

A spokesman at Fort Bragg told BBC News website that the initiative for the comic-book project came from the US Department of Defense's Central Command, which is responsible for US security interests in 25 Middle Eastern and Arab nations.[3]

Socratic Question #1:

What purpose do you suppose Fort Bragg initiated a ‘psychological operation’ in the form of comic books in the Middle East?

My opponent has missed the entire point of war, which is the cessation of hostilities and the bending of the will of the enemy towards cooperation.

Among the C2W elements, PSYOP alone may offer the opportunity to compel the enemy to do our will without fighting, both horizontally and vertically across the spectrum of conflict. . . . Give opponents alternatives to conflict. If the enemy no longer resists, he will do our will.[4]

And I think my opponent has not given much attention to the field of psychological warfare and conflict deterrence as would be necessitated when looking to the future of humankind. We as a society are ever looking to prolong life. Many of our efforts to learn better ‘how to end life’ are indeed used so as to understand how to keep life.

Socratic Question #2:

What do you suppose was the motivation behind American Law Enforcements decision to integrate the tazer into there collective resources?

Socratic Question #3:

Why do you suppose that many of the current ethnic and regional conflicts are taking place in parts of the world that would be classified as ‘less than a First World status’?

Socratic Questions #4 & #5:

Which do you think is more a function of the average human living in a First World Nation, to strive for peace or violent conflict? And Why?

Once again I will start by addressing some of my opponent's statements.

My opponent supplied a list of wars, indeed, his only effort was to supply the list. While a momentary glance at the list suggests that humans are indeed very violent, there is no context established, there is no explanation for the occurrence of these wars.

First of all, the "list of wars" was provided specifically to show that the number of Ethnic and Regional conflicts between humans has been growing and not diminishing. Hence pointing to the upward trend of this unfortunate reality. No context is required for this intent. Lest my opponent wishes me to analyze each specific war ever fought. In any case, my previous post was more than clear as to the fundamental dynamics which precipitate humans into these conflicts. Many of which my opponent has already acknowledged as accurate.

Third world countries do not have the amenities that many of us enjoy in a First World Nation. The majority is forced to make do with whatever resources are available and/or rely on the charity of First World Nations. Then there is the minority that initiates conflict…why? Well scarcity, as my opponent has stated. The fact that inequality has imposed a need for some people to initiate or respond in an aggressive manner is to be expected.

That is absolutely correct, though historically narrow in my opinion.

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously.

cont...

... in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".

Terms like "third world" are relatively new semantic categorizations symptomatic of the consequences of scarcity distribution. We have always had and always will have the "haves" and the "have nots".

Here's my opponent's simplistic view of the world:



Allow me to introduce a more sophisticated view of world development:



External source for quote and both maps and map legends: First World

As you can see the world is a little more complicated than lumping states and nations into only three categories. The idea that we are somehow moving towards a planet of first world nations is once again NOT supported by the facts and is purely based on romantic and unrealistic hopes.

Why?

This is the entire basis of my opponent’s argument and is completely devoid of any attention to our cultivation of technology, for a more efficient production of energy and a more efficient transportation of goods.

Really? I believe I have already addressed how throughout history Ethnic and Regional conflicts have increased in numbers as technology has improved. My opponent's hypothesis, one that he has yet to prove, hinges on the idea that if and when technology resolves our current energy crisis all out conflicts will magically fade away. What he fails to realize is that energy is merely the crisis du jour and not even the primary driving force behind the world's current Ethnic and Regional conflicts.

Wars are indeed fought over a myriad of reasons:

- Natural resources such as drinkable water, minerals and precious stones, food etc.
- Political Ideology
- Religious Extremism
- Nationalism/Independence
- Ethnic Cleansing
- Money/Economic Influence
- Territorial Expansionism
- Freedom from oppression
- Revenge
- Glory

I am sure the list is incomplete, it is however indicative of the fact that "energy" is but one and historically narrow reason for conflict between nations. Even if we could snap our fingers and make the world's energy woes disappear, what do you think would happen to nations which depend on that income? Such is the nature of scarcity. Furthermore, this is not a zero sum situation where the holders of existing supplies and resources are interchangeable. The fact is that we also have to account for population growth which will only add increased pressure on resources and generate even more scarcity.


source

What happens when archaic governments have been converted to that of a more citizen centric process (Democracies, Republics, etc)?

There will be a more universal understanding of social mores and values.

It is inevitable for the human species to reach a global society devoid of past contrivances once we are capable of providing an adequate quality of life for everyone.

Socratic Question No. 1

When, how, and why will this happen exactly ?

Indeed, large corporations donate millions of dollars a year in some cases for the benefit of the society in which it has been created.

Oh please, corporations small or large are built to generate profit. They may indeed make tax deductible and PR motivated charitable contributions, but surely you are not hinging your debate for this impending utopian enlightened state of humanity on their shoulders. And just to show that I am not a complete cold hearted cynic, I will concede that there are millions of people on Earth who make charitable contributions big and small. From the blue collar worker to Mr. Gates. No one is suggesting that humans are pure evil, just that they have always been and always will be engaged in Ethnic and Regional conflicts.

... the trend is clear that we are gradually integrating the nations and cultures of the world into a common goal. While conflict seems to be unavoidable today, the trend actually suggests that conflict, as defined by the debate topic, is doomed to become archaic.

Socratic Question No. 2

Is it? I ask you to present some evidence as to the claimed "clarity" of this supposed trend.

All you provided to back up this assertion is an example of the US military's psychological warfare tactics in Iraq, through a comic book campaign no less. And this is to be your example of what, enlightened warfare? Psy-Ops have been part of military campaigns since Alexander the Great.

Although not always accredited as the first practitioner of psychological warfare, Alexander the Great of Macedon undoubtedly showed himself to be effective in swaying the mindsets of the populaces that were expropriated in his campaigns. In order to keep the new Macedonian states from revolting against their leader, Alexander the Great would leave a number of his men behind in each city to introduce Greek culture, control it and oppress dissident views as well as interbreed. Since this method of persuasion did indeed influence loyalist and separatist opinions alike, it directly altered the psyches of the occupied people to conform.

No trend here I am afraid.

I am also afraid that you have done nothing to mitigate ANY of the MANY arguments through which I have already proven that Ethnic and Regional Conflicts are Inevitable.
________________________________________________________________

Answers to my opponent's Socratic Questions.

Question 1:

What purpose do you suppose Fort Bragg initiated a ‘psychological operation’ in the form of comic books in the Middle East?

Why don't we let the Dept. of Defense answer that for us:

The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives

The simpler answer is: To win a WAR.

Question 2:

What do you suppose was the motivation behind American Law Enforcements decision to integrate the tazer into there collective resources?

I am no expert on the subject, but I assume the major ambition/motivation was to find a non lethal alternative to apprehend suspects. I fail to see the relevance of this question as no one has suggested that humans enjoy killing each other. If you are suggesting that this is an indicator that we are becoming more enlightened as a species I will have to respectfully disagree. This is a recent development and there are not enough statistics and studies to come to a clear conclusion as to effectiveness of tazers. It very well may be that because of the non lethal nature of the tazer, law enforcement is more likely to use it, resulting in an increase in conflicts.

Question 3:

Why do you suppose that many of the current ethnic and regional conflicts are taking place in parts of the world that would be classified as ‘less than a First World status’?

I have largely addressed this already. The simple answer would be "third world" countries by definition have more scarcity, hence more conflict.

Question 4:

Which do you think is more a function of the average human living in a First World Nation, to strive for peace or violent conflict?

I don't believe that anyone but a very few among us, be it in the first or any other "world," strives for violent conflict. There are those few who join the army because they want to kill, there are serial killers, there are ambitious megalomaniacs like Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

Question 5:

And why

Well that is the debate isn't it? All of the reasons why humans always have and always will be engaged in IEthnic and Regional Conflicts are clearly stated in all my posts.

My opponent has done an apt job at illustrating our violent history and the current conflicts around the world. And he is quite right in that the segmenting of nations into first, second and third is a bit ‘narrow’…however, the terms were used not to be inaccurate, but to easily convey the point that there is indeed a discrepancy regarding the wealth of nations and how this provokes war. War is more likely in those regions where there is no established industry and economy, as my opponent and I have made abundantly clear.

My opponent will have you believe that this will be the case for the rest of human civilization. And while my opponent has provided historical documentation supporting our violent past, it must be stated, again, that nations notorious for conflict in the past are cooperating now. The European Union is a marriage of nations who in the past were constantly at each other’s throats. The American government has and is still making reparations and concessions to the indigenous Indians.

My opponent also says that energy production and available resources are basic motivations for war and discounts its relevance to the debate topic. However, we see that the current conflicts of the day (at least the most broadcast) are largely in a region where the means for energy production is most available – The Middle East. Not a coincidence. It is very important for an established nation(s) to retain the capacity it has enjoyed in its evolution. Without oil and coal, The United States and Europe would be ‘on a trip for biscuits’.

schrodingers dog
The idea that we are somehow moving towards a planet of first world nations is once again NOT supported by the facts and is purely based on romantic and unrealistic hopes.

I never once stated that we are moving towards a planet of First World Nations. I’ll thank my opponent to accurately represent my position when quoting me.

I stated that the ‘subpar’ nations of the world need to either stand on their ‘own feet’ or be integrated into a larger entity.

But for now, I would like to concentrate on another aspect of my position…control. Civilian and enemy control is a major hot point in our conspiracy board and it is there that we can bring together an analysis of the past and what we may see in the future.

War, or ethnic and regional conflict as defined by this debate is a struggle for control, for one’s will to overcome that of an entity which disagrees and effects the conditions of the provocateur. Be it a lack of resources impeding the health and prosperity of ones citizens, or moral differences, the fact of the matter is that war is predicated upon control, or the imposition of will upon another until the will is no longer considered an ‘imposition’.

After all, do we as a human species desire conflict?

Can we as a human species project into the future and recognize that the behaviours we have not only conducted, but at times encouraged, will ultimately be the end of those close to us if not ourselves?

Yes we can.

For my opponent to relegate war and mortal conflict as human nature is showcasing an incredible neglect of attention towards our collective intelligence. Perhaps my opponent would have been an advocate of perpetual human existence as an animal in the day of the cave man?

A decisive step in the evolution of man and in the establishment of his superiority over other living creatures was his gradual achievement of ecological liberation. Why should man accept unnecessary hardships? Why should he be wet because the rain was failing, or cold because the sun was hidden, or be at killed because predators were hungry? Why should he not cover his body with the soft skins of animals, construct tools and shelter, colIect food and water? Slowly the first sparks of intelligence began to challenge natural fate, *Snip*[1] My Emphasis

The human species is that of a continuous evolution and throughout the centuries, we have seen the human trait of intelligence take more and more of a foothold in how we as individuals interact with each other. What is an earmark of transition is that of conflicting traits working with and against each other; for the purpose of this debate, we are seeing a conflict of the human expectation of cooperative interaction with the clash of various cultural ideals. This is not an interaction that can be mitigated immediately and certainly not relegated to futility. The above excerpt exemplifies this sentiment and as well, the following quote directs our attention to the current covert operations to better understand the human physiology so as to control them…or perhaps better stated to prevent a violent reaction to interaction in whatever form.

"Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. -Dr. Jose Delgado

Dr. Jose Delgado is a pioneer in the field of mind manipulation. He was able to stop a raging bull by remotely stimulating it’s mind electrically.

What does this mean?

Well, it has no immediate effect on human nature with regards to current conflicts. But that is of no concern to me. My concern is illustrating current efforts to identify human behavior and reaction by those who wish to control it. As I stated in my opening, I would be delving into the ‘discomfort’ of the NWO. What this entails is indeed surreptitious control of human interactions, whether it be through general means of establishing outlets and venues for civilian expression or through direct means to dissuade from violent reactions.

Human Nature Is Well On Its’ Way To Being Understood By Our Scientific Professionals As Well As Our Intelligence Communities.

Why else would so much time and effort be given to understanding the intricacies of human interaction by covert experimentation? Indeed, experiments are still going on and it spans the entirety of our industries (that deal with human affectation). Indeed, as an interesting note, though I won’t source it as it is in my common knowledge, the whole fluoride in the water controversy takes on a different note when one considers that Prozac, along with about 25% of anti-depressants and tranquilizers require a fluoride isotope. Research the idea; I authored a thread here on ATS a few years ago on fluoride.

But my point is not to argue fluoride, merely it is but one example of the chemical and psychological tactics being studied and utilized for the appeasement of ‘human nature’, which, my opponent is sure will continue to rule the day.

I contend that human nature will change. We will adhere more to our intelligence and forethought than we will to direct and reactionary violence in the future.

Examples of American focus to human behavior (Special Thanks to Ian McLean):

12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the
tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the
individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts..[/url=http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~pellr/lansberry/mkultra.pdf][2][/url]

The above excerpt is limited to debate constraints on external sourcing, however the above does illustrate an attention to the human animal as it will react to overt manipulation. And this is indeed recorded from the MK-ULTRA proceedings, proving that we are in a point of human evolution where we are negotiating ‘human nature’ and our capacity to manipulate it.

Socratic Question #1:
Do you suppose that the ‘Powers That Be’ are envisioning a future where war and conflict are an unpredictable variable?

There are many projects underway and that have been conducted to establish how to provoke human reactions, to determine how the human body will behave under various circumstances, be it through chemical induction, physical impaction (sound waves as well as more ‘direct means’) or psychological means (an expansion upon the old concept of ‘peer pressure’).

schrodingers dog
Socratic Question No. 1
When, how, and why will this happen exactly ?

My direct answer is ‘that it will happen as it does’. Seriously, the question is the debate premise and requires much expression…and is answered indirectly throughout this post.

schrodingers dog
Socratic Question No. 2

Is it? I ask you to present some evidence as to the claimed "clarity" of this supposed trend.

The proof is in covert experimentation and the implied motivation for such. There is no reason to even care how people will react to general stimuli if there isn’t an interest in eventually preventing ‘mortal conflict’.

And I take issue with my opponents relegation of psychological operations to the time of Alexander The Great. Basic tactics of occupying a region to beat down dissidents is a far cry from persuading people to accept ‘occupation’ of their own accord…which is what the ‘comic book’ illustration was meant to convey. The objective is for long term and by introducing an entertainment with ideological manipulations is meant to affect a portion of the younger generation, which in turn will get passed on and so forth.

My premise does not necessitate my defining a time frame. Rather, to substantiate that current efforts, which are on the fringe of societal awareness, will win out and the human race will evolve into a cooperative species with only personal concerns and issues to relate and solve. Human history has merely shown us where we need to concentrate our efforts, rather than define what the future will hold.

I will continue to focus on these 'fringe issues'.

I will be taking my 24 hr extension due to electile euphoria.

I must address my opponents answers to my socratic questions from my previous post.

My opponent had said:

There will be a more universal understanding of social mores and values.
It is inevitable for the human species to reach a global society devoid of past contrivances once we are capable of providing an adequate quality of life for everyone.

Question 1: "When, how, and why will this happen exactly?"

My opponent's answer:

My direct answer is ‘that it will happen as it does’. Seriously, the question is the debate premise and requires much expression…and is answered indirectly throughout this post.

I put it to you that this answer is evasive and unresponsive. It is precisely because my opponents post was devoid of the specifics required for a successful defense of his position that the question was asked. Let it be noted that those specifics were not and have yet to be provided.

My opponent had also stated:

... the trend is clear that we are gradually integrating the nations and cultures of the world into a common goal. While conflict seems to be unavoidable today, the trend actually suggests that conflict, as defined by the debate topic, is doomed to become archaic.

Question 2: "Is it? I ask you to present some evidence as to the claimed "clarity" of this supposed trend."

My opponent's answer (in part):

My premise does not necessitate my defining a time frame. Rather, to substantiate that current efforts, which are on the fringe of societal awareness, will win out and the human race will evolve into a cooperative species with only personal concerns and issues to relate and solve.

Again this response is evasive and misleading. The fact is that my opponent claimed that there was a "clear trend," as such it absolutely requires the definition of a time frame.

When a series of measurements of a process is treated as a time series, trend estimation is the application of statistical techniques to make and justify statements about trends in the data.

Trend Estimation

Lest my opponent provide a time frame to clarify what he meant with "the trend is clear," we must discount both his original contention and his answer to my question.

_______________________________________________________________

Can we as a human species project into the future and recognize that the behaviours we have not only conducted, but at times encouraged, will ultimately be the end of those close to us if not ourselves?

That my friend is the ultimate question.

"Mankind must put and end to war, or war will put at end to mankind" John F. Kennedy

These words were spoken at the height of the cold war when a global nuclear war was indeed a very real threat. Thankfully such a war never materialized, presumably because of the Mutual Assured Destruction theory.

"Mutual assured destruction (MAD; sometimes written as mutually assured destruction) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.

Not dying is and always has been humans' primary instinct. But this has little or nothing to do with our debate.

My opponent asks:

After all, do we as a human species desire conflict?

My opponent has consistently misunderstood and/or misinterpreted the essential issue in this debate. The debate topic is NOT "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are avoidable," it IS "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."

Like I said earlier in the debate, wars have and are being avoided or a regular basis, including nuclear ones. Yet even and despite these efforts humanity has always been engaged in Ethnic and Regional conflicts. I have not once argued in this debate that most humans wouldn't choose peace over war. I have merely demonstrated that we, for all the reasons I have enumerated throughout the debate, are simply unable to coexist without conflict.

Need more proof. The cumulative historical death toll, to the degree that it can even be accurately calculated, for Soldier/Civilian/Genocide deaths is: Lowest Estimate = 306,351,885, Highest Estimate = 736,637,812 Conflict Death Toll

Absolutely staggering! Imagine what the death toll would be if we weren't able to avoid Ethnic and Regional Conflict.


Now I must address the shocking and disturbing premise of my opponent's previous post which envisages a world who's plot is a mix of "Clockwork Orange" and "One flew over the cuckoo's nest."

... we are in a point of human evolution where we are negotiating ‘human nature’ and our capacity to manipulate it.

Wow, just wow!

There you have it folks, the answer to all our problems, universal electric shock therapy with a little lobotomy sprinkled in for good measure.

Dr. Jose Delgado is a pioneer in the field of mind manipulation. He was able to stop a raging bull by remotely stimulating it’s mind electrically.

I am sure he was. No double that like all things addressed via electric shock, it is simply a matter of voltage.

By making this point my opponent has all but conceded that it is in the nature of humans to engage in conflict, Ethnic/Regional or otherwise, and that the way forward is to alter human nature via violent intrusion to the brain, mind altering drugs, and behavior manipulation. My opponent's hopeful utopia is indeed starting to take shape, and like all utopias, it is sinister as can be in its foundation. Dare I say that citizens/humans will rise up and fight to the death should any government attempt such insane measures. Thus creating yet another conflict.

Quite frankly my opponent's argument is both humorous and disturbing. Surely one cannot seriously consider that such is the path to a peaceful coexistence.

Either way, considering ALL the reasons and facts I have put forth in this debate, my opponent has done nothing to refute the point that "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."

There is one final indicator I would like put forth.

Violent Video Games

Video games have also been studied for links to addiction and violent behavior. Some studies have found that video games do not contribute to these problems, while others claim to have established a link.

Video Game Contoversy

Now I want to make this perfectly clear lest I sidetrack us from the debate topic. Though some studies have shown a causal link between violent video games and increased aggression, this particular debate, just like its film/tv counterpart, is far from being settled. This is NOT the reason I bring this issue up. It is not the debate topic and is a considerable discussion for another day.

This evidence is by no means central to my debate. I am merely demonstrating, in one final context, the human inclination towards conflict. The popularity of such violent video games demonstrates humans' inherent proclivity and attraction to conflict. Psychologically, violent video games enable the participant to engage in the very behavior we are discussing in this debate, without the "real" risk to his/hers personal safety. Devoid of personal risk, gamers are able to exorcize this most human of behaviors.

Just one more layer to add to the mountain of evidence I have already provided that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."

_________________________________________________________________

Socratic Question #1:
Do you suppose that the ‘Powers That Be’ are envisioning a future where war and conflict are an unpredictable variable?

I have no idea what you mean by "the powers that be." Much like the NWO, I have found such references to be unproven, abstract, and intellectually lazy. Please define the specific power structures you are referring to and I will be happy to answer the question. I assure you I am not being evasive in this matter, I simply cannot be expected to read your mind.

I will however share this with you. So that no one is under the false impression that the American government is wishing to take conflict away from our children's psyche.

If you're one of the many parents who worry about what violent video games are teaching your children, you may be disappointed to hear a program intended to promote non-violent conflict resolution received a potentially fatal blow this week. Congress, which was funding the game through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, slashed its budget, and its future is in doubt.

Cool School: Where Peace Rules was conceived as a response to the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, and has been receiving rave reviews from trials in Illinois schools. Although it was planned to appear in every elementary school in the country, the funding cut leaves the game with no formal distribution.

source

Take this information for what it is worth. In my opinion, and for all the reasons I have stated in this debate, it would not make a difference in the long run either way.

schrodingers dog
Again this response is evasive and misleading. The fact is that my opponent claimed that there was a "clear trend," as such it absolutely requires the definition of a time frame.

Human nature has been erratic in its’ past regarding peace and war. Does my opponent truly think that I am capable of providing an accurate projection into the future as to when American, European and even some Asain societies will overwhelm the world and subsequently end all mortal conflict on a regional basis? To give a clear timeline is quite ludicrous and as my opponent is also unable to provide any 'proof' of what will happen in the future, we are forced to rely on the evidence from the past and current events. With regards to the past, religion seemed to rule the day. With regards to the present day, science is replacing that paradigm and has made significantly more headway than religion ever did.

And that is what we are looking at here. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, there was no means to communicate with someone hundreds of miles away without expecting weeks for a response. Communication and cooperation encouraged by such was not only imperfect, but not really feasible. It is only now, when we can communicate over long distances in less than a second that we can reasonably expect our voices to influence that of those we intend to affect. Technology has advanced to the point where our collective words can be used to satiate our physical impulses. The culture of the D-Ego should and will have an impact on human behaviour everywhere.

How can my opponent reasonably expect me to measure it's current affect (along with other scientific advances) and then provide a clear and valid timeline? To do such would take many more pages and years beyond our 'quaint' debate.

Suffice to say, that I find it more than a bit relevant to establish that the European continent is much less aggressive towards each other after 20th century politics, industry and conflict have played out. I see no reason, especially considering that modern day conflict in the form of economics seems to rule the attention of First World Economies, why that trend isn’t clear. American society as well has established that ethnic conflict should be considered archaic, considering that we have collectively decided that an African American should lead us into the next four years.

We won't see this level of 'human growth' in smaller economies/nations until we solve that 'scarcity' problem. And that could take some time...but is by no means impossible. I dare say that, based on the democratic opinion that we need to depose of dictatorships (even those that control a valuable resource) and spread 'our way of life' and scientific advancement, that it is 'inevitable' for the human race to evolve beyond the need for reactionary conflict in favor of more reasonable and mutually beneficial strategies.

My opponent has also brought the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. This actually supports my side of the debate as such a concept was non-existent a century ago. While my opponent is indeed correct that the topic is not ‘avoidable conflict’, avoiding conflict and the ‘inevitability’of such are not inexclusive of each other. The recognition of human intelligence to perceive that avoiding mortal conflict is desirable is a relevant personality trait and should not be so readily dismissed (especially without proof) as weaker than the inclination towards violence.

schrodingers dog
There you have it folks, the answer to all our problems, universal electric shock therapy with a little lobotomy sprinkled in for good measure.

Obviously that is not the answer and my opponent has done well to cast ridicule on the topic of human manipulation and control. But we see nowadays the Pharmaceutical Corporations of the world continually making newer and more effective drugs to ‘correct’ deviant behavior in individuals, as defined by society.

And the trend to understand the human animal and all of its' intricacies is hardly one that is over, nor is it ridiculous (lobotomies have been discontinued for quite sometime in favor of chemical therapies, so I am inclined to ignore my opponent's ClockWork Orange example as paranoid and irrelevant).

What should be made incredibly clear to my opponent is that these out dated and current experiments are not how the future will look, rather they are steps that are being taken to comprehend human physiology more and more, so that we can ascertain positive and harmless therapies, both chemical and pyschological, to reduce and eventually eliminate the human tendency for violent behaviour.

Hypothalamic aggression, in turn, was rapidly facilitated by a corticosterone injection in rats in
which the natural adrenocortical stress response was prevented by adrenalectomy.

*Snip*

Also, control of stress and violent behavior is a priority objective among health authorities[1]

What the above shows is that the aggressive response induced in an experimental rat was systematically studied and recorded for further use. By comprehending these types of physiological reactions, we can control them. Now, we are not looking at a future where these experiments will be used on humans to eliminate violent behaviour. Rather, the comprehension gleaned from this study (and many others) will allow for the research and development of pharmaceuticals that specifically effect the highlighted region and can be administred as necessary.

schrodingers dog
By making this point my opponent has all but conceded that it is in the nature of humans to engage in conflict,

And this is where my opponent keeps getting stuck. Regardless of whether or not it is human nature currently to engage in violent conflict, there is no guarentee that will be the case in the future. My opponent has still failed to demonstrate how the amalgam of all current technological and scientific advancement will be thwarted by 'human nature'. Intelligence is as well a part of human nature, as is a cooperation and care. I have been accused of being narrow earlier in this debate; I now submit that throughout this discussion that my opponents definition of 'human nature' is indeed narrow and not inclusive of the other inherent qualities of our physiologies.

schrodingers dog
Dare I say that citizens/humans will rise up and fight to the death should any government attempt such insane measures. Thus creating yet another conflict.

Not if the technology is advanced enough. A human whose under the impression that the government is a valid authority and whom would rather trust a doctors word rather than be educated oneself will not think twice about going against the status-quo. Take a look at the relative complacency of the large majority of the world during the past eight years. It was established that Bush lied a multitude of times and their was nothing done to stop it. Not be you and not by me. We allowed it when we shouldn't have. So in a sense, even the basic application of the 'bread and circus' can be enough to instill submission.

What happens when all strategies are used together?

There are civilian experiments, MK-ULTRA being one of the most well known, that have helped some of our scientists better understand how humans react and how to affect their behaviour. There is Big Medicine, who along with big advertising budgets, have already convinced a huge portion of the United States that they need to be medicated for there own good (anti-depressants are a huge market). There is the Entertainment Industry, distracting the masses through 'fun and games' and at times even simulating violent conflict, which contrary to some critics of violence in movies and video games, helps to serve as an outlet for violent behaviour (it is always beneficial for parents to proactively teach their children). There is religion, the original 'opiate of the masses', whose institution helped control and satiate mankind domestically (I am aware of the violence done in the name of 'God', however, American Christianity has largely ceased taking violent courses of action to solve its' problems). And we have an American military and intelligence community utilizing pyschological operations to non-violently influence the behaviour and reactions of overseas communities. My opponent believes that the use of these strategies constitutes an agreement to his side of the debate. Mortal Conflict and Subtle Coercion are two different things.

The trend to more subtle means of human coercion is clear.

Definition of Psychological Operations:

'Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense[2] My Emphasis

It is better stated that Psychological Operations are more intended to win war In a non-violent fashion.

Human intelligence will win the day, rather then an out dated human inclination to 'react' to adverse situations.

Socratic Question#1:

Do you suppose that the ‘Powers That Be (World Leaders, Intelligence Communities, Health Authorities)’ are envisioning a future where war and conflict are an unpredictable variable?



[edit on 11/6/2008 by semperfortis]

Socratic Question 1:

Do you suppose that the ‘Powers That Be (World Leaders, Intelligence Communities, Health Authorities)’ are envisioning a future where war and conflict are an unpredictable variable?

I nor anyone else can know for sure. Leaders change, geo-political dynamics fluctuate, intelligence communities adapt accordingly and health authorities serve their governments and their business interests. What I can tell you is that global military expenditure for this year is approximately $1,470,000,000,000. That is of course for just one year and is to be added to the world's existing military arsenal.

___________________________________________________________________

Does my opponent truly think that I am capable of providing an accurate projection into the future as to when American, European and even some Asain societies will overwhelm the world and subsequently end all mortal conflict on a regional basis?

continued

How can my opponent reasonably expect me to measure it's current affect (along with other scientific advances) and then provide a clear and valid timeline? To do such would take many more pages and years beyond our 'quaint' debate.

continued

...my opponent is also unable to provide any 'proof' of what will happen in the future

I easily demonstrated the trend of the increasing frequency of Ethnic and Regional conflicts with one reference, I also showed the trend towards population increase with one graph. I am sure that if my opponent had any evidence to back up his "clear trend" statement he would have provided it. No one is asking my opponent to project into the future, just to back up his claim that "the trend is clear that we are gradually integrating the nations and cultures of the world into a common goal." A trend is not the same as a projection. My opponent has made this issue a cornerstone of his debate position yet he has provided zero evidence, other than the sordid prospect of manipulating human nature and behavior, to substantiate it.

Please show us this evidence of a "clear trend." I ask not as a socratic question but to give my opponent one last opportunity to explain this belief. Otherwise, I will once again insist that this part of my opponent's argument is founded on false hope and is without merit.

I want to address one last statement my opponent made:

And this is where my opponent keeps getting stuck. Regardless of whether or not it is human nature currently to engage in violent conflict, there is no guarantee that will be the case in the future. My opponent has still failed to demonstrate how the amalgam of all current technological and scientific advancement will be thwarted by 'human nature'. Intelligence is as well a part of human nature, as is a cooperation and care. I have been accused of being narrow earlier in this debate; I now submit that throughout this discussion that my opponents definition of 'human nature' is indeed narrow and not inclusive of the other inherent qualities of our physiology.

This statement could not be farther from the truth, it is an outright mischaracterization of what I have argued within this debate. Human nature might or might not be a fixed state. Some believe it to be so, others like Darwin argue that even human nature can have evolutionary attributes. As my opponent has so stated no one can predict the future with absolute certainty. The fact remains though, that as we sit here today, and as my opponent has already conceded, it is beyond dispute that our nature is leading us toward Ethnic and Regional conflicts. It is also beyond dispute, as I demonstrated through the included evidence, that the frequency of these conflicts is increasing. That is indeed a trend.

I am being accused of narrowing the debate on the point of human nature. I opened the debate addressing many aspects of human nature as they refer to conflict. Including interpersonal conflict, internal conflict, conflict with nature, etc. My opponent chose to narrow the debate in his opening post to simply address the aspect of human nature directly relating to the debate topic of (mortal) Ethnic and Regional conflict. As per his wishes, that is the aspect of human nature I have since been addressing.

_______________________________________________________________________


Final Thoughts/Recap

Ladies and gentlemen as I said in my opening statement, this debate is not that complicated.

There simply is a plethora of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable.

- Statistical Certainty: In the case of human history we have the greatest statistical sample of all. The recorded cumulative behavior of humans since the beginning of time up until this very moment. Thus in this case the sample is actually the whole thing. No margin of error, no uncertainty, we as humans are where we are today as a the direct effect of the behavior of billions of humans over thousands of years worth of causality. That humans have ALWAYS been engaged in conflict is beyond dispute. And, as I have described above, it is a matter of certainty that this behavior is inherent and not an accidental "blip" of history.

- Frequency: I have shown through my reference to the "List of Wars" that Ethnic and Regional conflicts have actually increased in frequency beginning around 12,000 BC until the present day. This is a clear trend of wars fought over:

1. Natural resources such as drinkable water, minerals and precious stones, food etc.
2. Political Ideology
3. Religious Extremism
4. Nationalism/Independence
5. Ethnic Cleansing
6. Money/Economic Influence
7. Territorial Expansionism
8. Freedom from oppression
9. Revenge
10. Glory

- Technology: I have also shown that technological improvement has done nothing to abate the upward trend of conflict frequency. In fact, it has done the precise opposite. As warfare technology improved conflict/war frequency has increased.

- Scarcity: Scarcity "is the problem of infinite human needs and wants, in a world of finite resources. In other words, society does not have sufficient productive resources to fulfill those wants and needs." It lies at the root of almost every human conflict. Be it energy, food, water, etc...

- Population Growth: Yet another upward trending dynamic which exacerbates the problem of resource scarcity, inevitably leading to increased Ethnic and Regional conflicts.

- Global Military Budget/Material Expansion Nations around the world are always expanding on their military arsenal with more efficient and deadly weapons. Until this clear trend is reversed, there is no reason to believe that there will be a decrease in Ethnic and Regional conflicts.

- Social Contract Governments, ethnic groups, religions, political ideologies, are all about the same principle. They are all different ideologies upon which to base a given society's distribution of resources. As a result of increased scarcity and population growth these "social contract" entities are doomed to increased conflicts over these dwindling resources. Add to that civil wars which are about the internal control of these resources and religious and ideological conflicts, our social contracts are essentially killing us.

- Human Nature My opponent and I have discussed this topic ad-nauseum. Other than my opponents hope and sinister behavior modification strategies, there is absolutely no evidence that we as humans are at the cusp of any shift in our natural predisposition to conflict and that a new age of peaceful harmony is but around the next corner. As I have clearly demonstrated, if anything, the opposite is happening, and that is the only "clear trend".

That's it. Everything I have included in this debate is based on the unfortunate but inescapable facts, and they all point to the same undeniable conclusion:

Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable.

Now I'm off to watch the Ultimate Fighting Championships!




[edit on 11/7/2008 by semperfortis]

There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Ladies and Gentlemen, this debate is and has been an interesting one for me. The position I have had to argue is one of difficulty and while at the beginning I found that I wasn’t sure if I could even argue it successfully, I found that as I went on that it is actually very simple.

We as a human civilization have had war throughout our existence and undoubtedly there will continue to be war for some time. My opponent has done an exceptional job at demonstrating this and while we agree that the past has a knack for suggesting the future, my opponent and I have found that our view of the past is different.

I of course pose no argument to the fact that wars have been going on for centuries. What I do find interesting, as I have stated, is that highly contested regions from the major wars of the past are no longer contested and in fact have settled into a singular entity based on the notion that in order for global survival of a nation to be possible there is a requirement for cooperation. The European Union was born through this and as well there are many other regions of the world looking to establish similar unions based on their model. The one commonality for all wars seems to be that they almost always are in regions that do not have what the ‘haves’ do. But we see that this discrepancy is slowly changing and through international efforts the poorer countries of the world are being attended to.

This is not an overnight process. There will be mortal conflict throughout this process. But the inevitability is that there won’t be a need for mortal conflict between ethnicities and regions once a global community has been established.

My one regret in this debate is being ill prepared to show that we are indeed headed for this ‘global community’.

I have shown, however, tracings of this gradual progression just by looking at not only our society but at some ‘fringe issues’ that are not readily indicative of this progression, though undoubtedly point to the fact that the human species is not only interested in the cessation of hostilities but are activily pursuing the means to understand and implement safeguards against mortal conflict.

With the availability of new functional and structural neuroimaging techniques, researchers have begun to localize brain areas that may be dysfunctional in offenders who are aggressive and violent. Our review of 17 neuroimaging studies reveals that the areas associated with aggressive and/or violent behavioral histories, particularly impulsive acts, are located in the prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal regions. These findings are explained in the context of negative emotion regulation, and suggestions are provided concerning how such findings may affect future theoretical frameworks in criminology, crime prevention efforts, and the functioning of the criminal justice system. url=http://tva.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/2/176[1][/url]

The above excerpt, an opening to a research paper that I am unfortunately able to access fully demonstrates two things clearly.

- The use of new technologies to measure and catalog the brain in relation to behaviour.
- The fact ‘aggressive and violent' behaviour is being attributed to ‘dysfuntional brain areas’.

The second point is very important to understand in relation to my presentation. It suggests that we as a species have recognized the violent aspect of our nature and have thus deemed it to be physically undesirable. By taking this viewpoint, we have actively taken many steps at correcting this ‘dysfunction.

And that is where we can see a physiological trend that cannot be expressed readily, as through the years the human animal will physiologically evolve in response to these ‘corrective actions’ on our bodies. As the human animal learns, through basic societal constructs (legal and law enforcement institutions) and through the new to our society by less than a century application of ingestants designed specifically to change how our bodies release specific neurotransmitters and hormones, we shall begin to have the physical ingrained deterrence of violent behavior, as is the case with certain individuals in our society right now (I am abhorrent to physical violence and would never resort to it as I know that there are many ways to interact with a set of circumstances and people that are more likely to be effective).

schrodingers dog
Please show us this evidence of a "clear trend." I ask not as a socratic question but to give my opponent one last opportunity to explain this belief. Otherwise, I will once again insist that this part of my opponent's argument is founded on false hope and is without merit.

My argument is not based on ‘false hope’. The trend is all over our society, just as the trend that you have presented is all over our history. I have indeed demonstrated that there is a trend towards a less violent civilization as evidenced by basic societal realities.

schrodingers dog
Other than my opponents hope and sinister behavior modification strategies, there is absolutely no evidence that we as humans are at the cusp of any shift in our natural predisposition to conflict and that a new age of peaceful harmony is but around the next corner.

The above quote is taken from the Human Behaviour bulletpoint in my opponents closing, which is arguably the most important bullet point as the rest are merely the results of human behaviour bourne of a physiology that evolved to war in an environment that was decidedly less advanced than our current society. Today, we have an incredible amount of options when it comes to do with our freetime, and there are many outlets made available by our society (‘First World’) in which to explore all aspects of our human nature without any actual physical violence. While it is yet to be perfect, it is a considerable improvement to our past.

An illustration of this trend, yes trend, can be found on the right side of this linked page ( The Dark Blue Line denoting the statistics of violent crime in the chart; [2])

The current status of our civilization is that of beginning. We are beginning to see that we can control our environment and as well use the more subtle means to motivate and control the behavior of other individuals.

This debate has taken me through many concepts and ideas to show that my opponents simple posit that violence will occur throughout our species’ existence is indeed a narrow view of what we are working towards…which is a better tomorrow and one in which all humans may enjoy the many aspects of what can be experienced in life. We have a long way to go, but I am convinced that human evolution necessarily requires a cessation of hostilities based on ethnis and regional differences and that we will indeed incorporate this ideal into our lives on a global level.

My opponent has stated that this is more of a flight of fancy based in diluted hope.

I am convinced that it is inevitable.


Thanks to schrodingers dog for an incredibly informative and challenging debate. My hat is off to you.

Thanks as well to the readers, whom I hoped enjoyed our spar and of course semperfortis.

Off to the Judges

Semper

THE RESULTS ARE IN

The question of whether ethnic/regional conflict is inevitable or not is an interesting one. Judging from our past and present it seems inevitable, as Schrodingers Dog succeeded in proving. There is, however, hope and reason to believe in a better Future, as MemoryShock succeeded in proving.

This debate raised another interesting question: If peace will prevail, will this peace have to be enforced by what SchrodingersDog aptly called "sinister behaviour modification" methods? Or will it proceed through the democratization and global cooperation we are striving for?

Both debaters held their argument without any blatant errors in argument, and I as a judge am tasked with the imposssible: To determine a "winner" of such a level debate.

I am therefore left to judge this debate subjectively. After reading it I do have the impression that conflict is inevitable...but I do not have the impression that ethnic/regional conflict is inevitable. In this debate I have seen that this specific type of conflict is no longer a part of 1st world regions. Thats enough for me.

MemoryShock is the winner by a very narrow margin.

Debate Judgement: Schrodingers Dog vs. MemoryShock

This was definitely a battle royale. Both fighters made impressive arguments, thus making this a tough debate to judge. However, there can only be one winner. MemoryShock wins this battle by a nose.

My notes:

Opening Statement
Schrodingers Dog hits hard coming out of the gate. Makes a compelling argument, albeit short, and frames it well.

MemoryShock undoubtedly has the harder argument to spin. Establishes early on that mortal conflicts of the past are not indicative of a future pattern. Waltzes into globalization and touches upon NOW.

Opening Statement round goes to MemoryShock.

Round 1
Schrodingers Dog does a fairly good (although simplistic) job of tying conflicts to human nature, technology, triggers and social contracts. Strangely enough, I’m hungry for fruit pastry.

MemoryShock lightly touches upon SD’s talking points and quickly jumps to First, Second and Third World perspectives. He then focuses the on the merits of cooperation in lieu of conflict, production of energy to ease scarcity, and increase in altruism.

Round 1 goes to MemoryShock.

Round 2
Schrodingers Dog finds himself in the defensive position for the duration of this round. He is able to score a few hits in his rebuttal, i.e. dismissing energy production as the miracle cure for the world’s woes and corporate donations as less than completely altruistic.

MemoryShock attempts to bring energy production back into the forefront. He then jumps to a tagent of civilian control, scientific means of altering human nature, and seems to be setting the stage for ending conflict to bring about a passive acceptance of a NWO. His position in this round is all over the place, hence less focused.

Round 2 is a tie.

Round 3
Schrodingers Dog offers very little to further his argument in this final round. He does little more than mock MemoryShock’s premise of a possible NWO to negate future need for conflict. He brings up violent video games in passing, but fails to intergrate it into the fold of his argument. SD also refuses to answer the Socratic Question regarding the NOW, deeming the concept to be “intellectually lazy.” Instead, he attempts to tie back into violent video games.

It seems as if MemoryShock starts off on the defensive, but he manages to frame his argument for mankind’s future as opposed to dwelling in the past. He also continues to build his case for human intelligence, conflict resolution and the emergence of a NWO. He covers a lot of ground in a short span of time, but manages to tie the ends together.

Round 3 goes to MemoryShock.

Closing Statement
Schrodingers Dog finally comes around to tying up the loose ends in his argument. My only wish is that he had spent more time expanding on these points earlier in the debate. As a result, many of his points come across more as an afterthought then supporting evidence. Also, there is something about his presentation that comes across as flat.

MemoryShock points out that the historically worn torn areas of Europe are now united as a singular union, thus supporting his premise that conflicts can be resolved through mutual coorperation. This goes a long way towards his argument that global unity and peace is a possibility.

The final argument is a draw.

In the end, both fighters make compelling arguments. I wish that Schrodingers Dog had expanded upon the bulk of his supporting evidence presented in his closing a bit more throughout the course of his debate. He should have been able to maintain the upper hand throughout this debate, but wasn’t able to take control of the battle.

On the other hand, MemoryShock seems to have bitten off a little more than he could chew considering the space constraints of this debate. Frankly, his argument of human behavior modification through flouridation (without supporting evidence) and MK-ULTRA (again, without supporting evidence) to be on the weak side. However, he was able to show that peaceful resolutions between ethnic and regional factions can exist citing the European Union as a model example.

In the end, I have to give the debate to MemoryShock.

Challenge Match: Schrodingers Dog vs MemoryShock: "Stop The Madness! People Are Dying"

Initially I was disappointed in Schrodingers dogs opening. That got him off to a bad start, while I found MemoryShock’s opening to be far more complete and comprehensive.

Schrodingers Dog’s first reply was what I was looking for in this debate. Full of information and set the tone for where he was going. I particularly liked the Socio-psychological aspect of his first real presentation.

MemoryShock’s first reply started out almost defensive in nature, but at the end his comments about the cessation of war by the bending of will towards cooperation was brilliant.

One small comment like that can make an incredible impact.

However some of MemoryShock’s Socratic questions left me wondering what direction he was going to settle on.

MemoryShock did gain an advantage with the Socratic Questions however, when Schrodingers Dog stumbled over his answers to them. This was a perfect example of the use of the Socratic Question.

Two comments are examples of misdirection and/or a waste of valuable character count in this debate.

My opponent has consistently misunderstood and/or misinterpreted the essential issue in this debate. The debate topic is NOT "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are avoidable," it IS "Ethnic and Regional Conflicts Between Humans Are Inevitable."

And

Absolutely staggering! Imagine what the death toll would be if we weren't able to avoid Ethnic and Regional Conflict.

Contradictory and from the same post by Schrodingers Dog

MemoryShock was able to present a compelling case in regards to regional political strife having moved towards perhaps a permanent peaceful settlement, yet feel short in presenting a case for a “General” move in that direction by the many and varied ethnic regions.

As with all debates, it is not the place for a judge to determine who is more convincing on the topic. The judgment is solely based on the quality of the debate and the presentation.

As such, I find this debate to be a Tie.

MemoryShock is the Winner

Congratulations to both Fighters on a GREAT Debate.

Semper

My hat is off to Schrodingers Dog. I was scrambling in the initial posts of this debate and that is a tribute to Schro Dog.

: To Schrodingers Dog...

MemoryShock is crazy. Just when you think you get him in corner, he counters with a knock out blow.