Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

Round 1
sidlee03: "This is definitley an odd and very broad topic, but it's fun to think about. Try and imagine that verbal communication had never existed. Would the world be a better place? I say yes, without a doubt. Talking, more often than not, creates an overload of unnecessary, and often harmful, information. We humans insult each other A LOT...especially nowadays. The youth is especially obsessed with placing others lower and lower on the totem pole in order to gain popularity and praise. It's sick, quite frankly.

Yes, talking also yields plenty of compliments and praise...but let's be realistic. Humans, by nature, are more inclined to look at the negative side of things, and act accordingly. It creates a toxic environment.

Primal and natural instincts are more powerful than talking. Are you familiar with Helen Keller? She was a deafblind...couldn't see or hear. Yet somehow, she graduated from college and became a social activist. Why? because she found a way to use nature to mold herself into a good and humbling person. Not by talking."

MichaelJ: "If verbal communication did not exist, something else would rise up in its place. Verbal communication is not, in itself, harmful- and your examples prove it. What is sometimes harmful is communication itself- but I think we can agree that if we didn't have that then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence.

Let's first look at the origin of verbal communication itself- it is theorized (and it happens to make perfect sense) that communication evolves from a series of grunts and groans made by our great-great-great ancestors as an indication of the location of food. Eventually, they came to use different grunts as signals for specific tactical formations and hunting strategies, and man found that the whole is oftentimes greater than just the sum of its parts.

If you are a believer in evolution, as I am (though that's another debate) then you MUST believe that verbal communication is beneficial (and by beneficial I'm assuming that the rest of the sentence is "to man") because otherwise those who developed verbal skills wouldn't have become the dominant representatives of the species.

If you are not a believer in evolution, then I can still win the debate because I can prove that verbal communication is fundamentally no different than other types of communication, and so you will have to defend the concept that ALL communication is more harmful than beneficial, which I think is something quite difficult to do.

You bring up the idea of Hellen Keller as a reason why verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial. She turned out very well without it, you reason. The flaw of this argument is threefold:

1)She is one person and not representative or statistically significant.

2)Many more people who DO communicate verbally have led helpful lives.

3)She still found a way to communicate with the outside world through writing, and books have been used throughout history just as well as verbal communication to ostracize groups and cast hatred and start wars and all the rest of those very pleasant negatives which you believe verbal communication to be the harbinger of.

Unless you can prove that mankind would be better off without any sort of communication at all, your implication that we would be improved without verbal communication will fail to be plausible and therefore will fail to move people to your side."

Round 2
sidlee03: "You say: "If we didn't have communication then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence." Oooookay. You're saying that's a bad thing? Earth is like a cell. It's a tiny fraction of the universe, and humans are nothing but its parasites, like parasites on a cell. For every one good thing we've done for this planet, we've done many many many harmful things. And in case you didn't notice, the topic of debate is clearly whether VC is harmful to THE WORLD. Let me repeat: THE WORLD. You represent the con to this debate, yet you have, in no way, proved that verbal communication is benificial to THE WORLD.

Try reading the topic a little closer next time small fry."

MichaelJ: "I'm going to take the first two thousand words to address your obnoxious little terminology foolery, and then I'll get to answering your "true" intention, even though by then I will have proven that effort to be entirely unnecessary, and show why, on your own terms and in every way possible, your argument will ultimately fail.

Me- "If we didn't have communication then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence."

You- "Oooookay. You're saying that's a bad thing?"

Response: Yes. Yes it is. If you don't think it would have been a bad thing had humanity never come into existence, then you have some sort of weird existential death-wish thing going on.

"Earth is like a cell."

Really? I can't wait until we reproduce and split into another Earth. That'd be awesome. I mean, that's what you meant, right? That's what a cell does, and so it wouldn't be at all dickish of me to say that, right?

"It's a tiny fraction of the universe, and humans are nothing but its parasites, like parasites on a cell."

...OoooK....

"For every one good thing we've done for this planet, we've done many many many harmful things."

Yes but they've been very good to us, now haven't they? And we're part of the world? Right?

"And in case you didn't notice, the topic of debate is clearly whether VC is harmful to THE WORLD."

Yes, it's clearly that. What is less clear is the meaning you want to imply.

"Let me repeat: THE WORLD."

You say this word again. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Try reading the topic a little closer next time small fry."

Try defining the terms in your opening instead of making me conjecture next time please. Just because you think that you've insinuated something doesn't mean jack unless I am aware of the definitions you're using. I apologize to you for assuming that "the world" meant the people who live in the world- a reading which I think is very reasonable given the metonymy of it. You would not say "The White House is Harmful to Common Americans" and then try to tell me that it was obvious you meant the building itself, would you? After all, it's the "World Health Organization" and the "World Organization Against Torture" and the "World Organization for Animal Health," and not the "Parasite Health Organization" as you would prefer it.

That's my response, then, to what you accused me of in the last round. But wait, (as they say) there's more. Let's take a short trip down memory lane to your opening argument:

"Would the world be a better place? I say yes, without a doubt. Talking, more often than not, creates an overload of unnecessary, and often harmful, information. We humans insult each other A LOT...especially nowadays. The youth is especially obsessed with placing others lower and lower on the totem pole in order to gain popularity and praise. It's sick, quite frankly."

OK. This is basically your entire argument. And... it appears you're talking about people. Yup... just people... not the planet, not animals, not anything other than people. It astounds me that, even knowing that what you wrote gave every indication that you were talking about people, you felt justified in claiming that I had failed to read your topic title.

NOW I'll actually address what you say you want me to address and I'll show how it's OBVIOUSLY not what you wanted me to address originally. However, it's difficult to say what you want to address. You claim that verbal communication is bad for "The World" and you have described "The World" as a "cell" and we are like "a parasite" which I suppose I can interpret as your belief that humanity is not part of "the world."

And so if we aren't part of this cell... if we're just a parasite, as you suggest, then WHAT exactly is this "World" that you're talking about? Does it consist of every living thing that is NOT us? That doesn't quite seem fair. Does it consist of all non-sentient beings? Plants and things? Not even plants? Well if that's the case, then you've picked a bizarre topic, because you don't mean that "verbal communication" is bad. You mean "people" are bad. Because I guarantee that, regardless of any sort of verbal communication, people will always find ways to express ideas to other people, and sometimes those ideas are going to be dangerous. So verbal communication has NOTHING to do with it and I am left very confused as to why you picked this one thing as the object of your ire. It's like saying "Barbecue Sauce is More Harmful than Beneficial to Pigs"... well, no... Eating pigs is harmful to pigs. Barbecue sauce is just delicious. Because you are blaming an ancillary for the entire problem, your argument fails."

Round 3
sidlee03: "I seriously laughed out loud at this...when no one else is around, and that's hard to do. Bravo.

I was hoping you would notice that my topic seemed a bit paradoxical to my opening argument. And you did...very nice. You also managed to get angry on the internet...another nice one.

What I did was called a debate strategy. My topic was that VC is more harmful than benificial to the world. My opening argument was that talking creates too much counterproductive information. Now technically, that is in no way paradoxical. It goes to show that humans not only excessively harm the earth but also themselves--it's additional information. But, I'll give you a break and say that, in an implied sense, it is a bit paradoxical, because I talked about humans and then criticized you for not addressing the planet earth.

Now here's the clincher...

had you been sharp enough to turn my own words against me right off the bat, simply asking the question of: "The word 'world' has multiple meanings. Why are you only addressing humans?" then there would be no way I could win...because I would have imploded, failing to answer my OWN question of debate. You would have beaten me at my own game. However, you didn't do so. You fell for my trap...the bait of which was to purposely stray a little off topic. You bit and went off topic yourself. You should have been quicker on the draw.

Just for kicks (and giggles)...

You argue that "barbecue sauce isn't necessarily harmful to pigs. Killing them is." Amen to that. You're absolutely right. However, that is a totally different situation. Comparing apples to oranges reveals your weakness: generalizing. The fact that verbal communication (which, by definition, is using words to exchange ideas with one another) led to the knowledge of good and evil (such as in the book of Genesis) serves as a very large catalyst of the harm humans have done to one another and the environment. Once a person knows what he can do to negatively affect others, the battle is lost. He will naturally be overtaken by greed, because greed is the basis of all mankind. And, because harming people is simply more fun.

Once Eve, who was VERBALLY tempted by the devil, knew that she could disobey God and eat from the tree, the temptation was too great for her to resist. She ate of it, and things got worse. She and Adam became ashamed of nudity. Cain killed Abel because of jealousy. Wars started to occur. People would murder each other for land and power. Michael Jackson became a pop music star (hee hee). Mankind became worse and worse until nowadays, the message being sent to the youth is essentially: "Screw everybody else. Just worry about yourself." And things will only continue to get worse. Global warming (which can basically be blamed on one thing: cars) will probably lead to the extinction of humans. In the words of Johnathan Edwards..."mankind will naturally descend to its lowest state." And all these problems blossomed from one event: the devil verbally tempting Eve. Or, if you don't believe in the story of creation, then the first "sin" by the first man.

Now for the irony of this whole subject...

we have both created very detailed and very long arguments, but the whole basis of the argument is extremely simple: whether or not verbal communication is more harmful to the world than beneficial. Logically speaking, verbal communication can't be, as a whole, more beneficial. It has led to the knowledge of evil, which has led to temptation, which has led to sin. Has verbal communication made society more efficient? Definitely, because of technology. But that's not a good thing, for the more efficient we become, the closer our doom creeps. And you have failed to prove the opposite, because there is no opposite. It's fact.

Checkmate."

MichaelJ: "ride cometh before the fall. I'm glad that you enjoyed the previous round- I used some of my favorite movie quotations- did you catch them all?

I wasn't angry at you, bucko, I'm just taking pleasure in seeing your mind at work. It's a very intriguing thing that you're saying you've done here. Essentially, you invented a game that only you knew the rules to and then say that you win because I didn't figure out the game.

"What I did was called a debate strategy."

Not in the least. It manages to both subvert the point of debate AND make you look like a dick. Not to me, just in general. I like it.

"My opening argument was that talking creates too much counterproductive information. Now technically, that is in no way paradoxical. It goes to show that humans not only excessively harm the earth but also themselves--it's additional information."

Additional information: Information that is in addition to information already given. So no, that's not additional information, it's (see above) stupid.

"But, I'll give you a break"

Like a kit-kat bar.

"had you been sharp enough to turn my own words against me right off the bat, simply asking the question of: "The word 'world' has multiple meanings. Why are you only addressing humans?" then there would be no way I could win...because I would have imploded, failing to answer my OWN question of debate. You would have beaten me at my own game."

Uh huh. Had I ignored your words and attacked your definitions. See, at that point I thought that you were being sincere in your argument and that you meant what you insinuated by your argument- that "world" meant "people." Doing otherwise and attacking your definitions would have made me a dick.

"However, you didn't do so. You fell for my trap...the bait of which was to purposely stray a little off topic. You bit and went off topic yourself. You should have been quicker on the draw."

Umm... I'm having trouble deciding whether that's dickish or just stupid. Especially considering that you didn't, in fact, stray off topic at all if we assume that you were being sincere in any of your initial arguments. But I suppose we can't do that.

"You argue that "barbecue sauce isn't necessarily harmful to pigs. Killing them is." Amen to that. You're absolutely right. However, that is a totally different situation."

Very good. How?

"Comparing apples to oranges reveals your weakness: generalizing."

Wait a second- you never said how I was comparing apples and oranges, which, by the way, are both fruits. And delicious. Nothing wrong with those comparisons.

"The fact that verbal communication (which, by definition, is using words to exchange ideas with one another)"

Agreed on the definition!

"led to the knowledge of good and evil (such as in the book of Genesis) serves as a very large catalyst of the harm humans have done to one another and the environment."

I refute thy argument! Catalysts can't be blamed for what they catalyze.

"harming people is simply more fun."

... well THAT explains you.

"Once Eve, who was VERBALLY tempted by the devil,"

who was a SNAKE! Damn snakes! They must be inherrently evil.

"Mankind became worse and worse until nowadays, the message being sent to the youth is essentially: "Screw everybody else."

Not true- our youth are the most altruistic and service-oriented of any recent generation. Yours is an opinion- find numbers that refute me and then maybe we can talk.

"Global warming (which can basically be blamed on one thing: cars)"

... errm.... no. Cows. Once more, science agrees with me. Woohoo!

"And all these problems blossomed from one event: the devil verbally tempting Eve. Or, if you don't believe in the story of creation, then the first "sin" by the first man."

I point to an earlier problem as the true source of unhappiness- God creating Eve in the first place. Women must be more harmful than beneficial to the world, too!

"we have both created very detailed and very long arguments, but the whole basis of the argument is extremely simple: whether or not verbal communication is more harmful to the world than beneficial."

True!

"Logically speaking, verbal communication can't be, as a whole, more beneficial."

Fine, then logically it can't be, as a whole, more harmful either. And I don't have to prove that it's more beneficial, all I have to do is prove that it's a non-issue and they're both equal.

"But that's not a good thing, for the more efficient we become, the closer our doom creeps."

Opinion. You're stretching.

"And you have failed to prove the opposite, because there is no opposite. It's fact."

See above. Opinion. The philisophical school that says man is constantly descending is countered by the philisophical school that says we are, instead, ascending towards a golden age. You prove nothing. Your argument fails.

"Checkmate."

Ditto."

Round 4
sidlee03: "I'm going to summarize our whole debate for you.

First, I created the debate topic of "verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world."

Then, with my opening argument, I explained that had VC never existed, humans would have virtually no way of insulting one another. The words "fu*k," "sh*t," "bi*ch," "pus*y," "pansy," "weirdo," "fag,", for instance, would never have come into existence. Governments would not exist. The different levels of society would not exist: upper, middle, and lower class. Songs, books, television, music, cars, the media...would not exist. Technology wouldn't exist. Are you going to make the argument that technology has been more beneficial to the world than harmful, when really all it has done is shorten human life by intoxicating the environment? Society would basically be a collection of life forms who use their instincts (such as breathing, eating, $hitting) to survive. People would be DOING instead of talking. We would soon find out that flaws such as laziness, apathy, conflict, argument, war...would be counterproductive to human life...because these things will lead to death much much quicker than natural instincts such as breathing (duh). Do flies use words to communicate? No. And look how simple and easy their lives are...they're living the lives God intended for them. Do flowers speak? Nope. Yet how many wars have flowers fough against one another? Do ants talk to sheep? Nope, but the two species coexist just fine. You'll come to find that without talking, people start to do only what is necessary. Believe it or not, society would be lots more efficient.

Then I revealed to you that my opening argument was really a "trap." You took the bait and began thinking only inside the box, which is exactly what I intended for you to do. You began to argue that without verbal communication, humans would not be where they are today. That fact, however, has no relevance to my topic of debate...because it fails to argue that VC is more beneficial to both the planet earth and humans themselves. You've not summoned one fact to argue that talking will make the world (whether it be the planet earth or the human population) a better place. I, however, have clearly cited examples of how much better the world would be without it. There has been no fallacy in my argument at all, but plenty in yours. When VC creates world peace, eliminates the problem of global warming, and does away with pollution, let me know. Because maybe then, you'll have at least a fraction of an argument, and will go down swinging.

Oh and a few other things...

-why do you have such a fascination with the word "dick"? It kind of makes me wonder...

-you label additional info as "info that has been added to previously given info"...umm, no. Nice try, but that's terribly wrong. The root word of additional is "addition." In mathematical addition, the order in which you add numbers doesn't matter in the least, because the sum will still be the same. Any set of info can be additional to another set.

-"our youth is the most altruitional and service-oriented of any recent generation." DO WHAT??????????????????????? You can't be serious!!

According to scientists, the chances that 15-year-olds will have behavioral problems such as lying, stealing, and being disobedient, has more than doubled in the last 25 years.

The rate of emotional problems such as anxiety and depression has increased by 70% among adolescents, according to the biggest time trend study conducted in Britain.

Research found that the rising rate of 15-year-olds with behavioural problems correlated to their increased chances of experiencing a range of poor outcomes as adults, such as homelessness, being sacked, dependency on benefits and poor mental and physical health.

In the last 20 years, suicide rates for kids aged 5-14 have doubled.

The total number of suicides in 1999 was 29,199.

America today has a 50% divorce rate.

Gun killings by young people 18 to 24 increased from about 5,000 in 1980 to more than 7,500 in 1997.

....is this what you call altruistic and service-oriented? If so, then all I can say is...wow."

MichaelJ: "The best definition of man that I have ever heard is that man is the "rational animal." What you propose is that taking away our verbal communication will result in the absence of... well, pretty much anything bad at all. We would eat and crap and sleep and return to all of our natural instincts.

Of course, we would continue killing one another. That's a natural instinct.

Oh, and our mortality rate would rise exponentially because we wouldn't be able to use modern medicine or technology.

We'd basically be animals.

And yet you think this would be better for the world. Look, I'm sorry if you're made fun of or you feel as though people enjoy taking advantage of you or whatever, but you should feel lucky that you're able to even understand why you feel like crap when that happens. You have this picture in your head of a Utopian society wherein all the creatures live in natural harmony with one another when there is no longer anything to fight for.

You say "Do ants talk to sheep? Nope, but the two species coexist just fine." Well, wolves don't talk to sheep either. Ants don't bother sheep and sheep don't bother ants because there is nothing that they could gain from the other.

"Any set of info can be additional to another set." True. If the first set exists. Otherwise it's just "information" and not "additional." I can't say to you "hey, plus two" and then claim that you have erred when you suggest that the answer is two and I inform you that you were supposed to be adding two to nine.

"'our youth is the most altruitional and service-oriented of any recent generation.' DO WHAT??????????????????????? You can't be serious!!"
 * sigh* Yes, yes I am. And none of your "facts" refute this.

Look, I've read the data and it supports my claims, but I don't really feel like expending the energy to put it on here because I find your own arguments entirely unconvincing to the point that putting up a defense is unnecessary.

It's obvious from your own responses that you don't understand the role that technology plays in global warming, and you didn't refute that. You also fail to grasp the idea that technology is actually helping humans live longer. This isn't a debate about the environment, though, it's about verbal communication.

And because all of your arguments rely on communication as a whole and not verbal communication specifically, you have failed to prove your point. The burden of proof is not on me because you're arguing for something that we're not even supposed to be debating about, and anyone judging this debate should be able to easily see this."

Round 5
sidlee03: "Michael, I love the way you present your arguments. You've got a strong vocabulary and reasonable thoughts. However, what good are these tools if your argument isn't relevant to the topic?

You can't fool me. I can sense that you have no reasonable information to back up your argument, so you try to sound like a genius while attacking my argument. Here's proof...

"Look, I've read the data and it supports my claims, but I don't really feel like expending the energy to put in on here."

...Now THAT is good acting. Bravo. You have read my real statistical data, scientific proof that cannot be disputed, and realized you can't argue with facts, so you play it off by claiming you "don't have the energy" to argue against it. That's hilarious. You clearly said that "today's youth is the most altruistic of any recent generation" in your round 2 argument. I replied by presenting facts that show that today's generation is anything but that, and yet you say: "These facts support my claims." Huh? How?

Now back to my main point... you chose to be on the con side of this debate, correct? Therefore, you represent the side claiming that verbal communication is more BENIFICIAL than HARMFUL to the world, right?

So... where is your true argument? I've read only 2 pieces of information that are relevant to the topic, and neither of them were used until the THIRD ROUND. Here they are...

"Humans will still kill each other. It's natural instinct." Umm, okay. I'm not disputing that. My argument is obviously that without talking, the world would be a BETTER place. Not once have I said that the world would be a PERFECT place.

"We'd basically be animals." And? I don't see horses and dogs and fish constanly polluting the environment with nasty, unhealthy gases. Do you? This debate isn't about fun and entertainment. It's about the condition of the world we live in.

Without verbal communication, there would be much less people. Without people, there would be much less pollution. Without pollution, the world would be just fine. It's that simple.

Whether or not you want to accept or admit it, you've been beaten.

Checkmate, and have a nice day."

MichaelJ: "Sidlee, you've been an engaging opponent, and apparently you believe you've won. I'm sorry that saying something doesn't, in fact, make it true. (insert evil laugh here)

Unfortunately, here is where this debate must end. I present to anyone judging this debate the following finishing move:

Sidlee has an excellent grasp of how to distract from the actual purpose of the debate because he realizes that he has a serious chink in his armor. He will go on and on about how I have "failed to prove" this and "not offered evidence" for that, and all of these points that he is hounding me on were entirely ancillary (and don't matter in the least) to my destroying the rock upon which his position rested. Three times have I called him out, and at no point has he answered my challenge.

It's like this. If you are suggesting that "Verbal Communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world..." then you have to submit examples which explain why verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world. I know this seems redundant, and it is, but this is something which my opponent has failed to do over and over again. What he has done instead is set up a straw man argument and argued for the proposition "rationally thinking (sinful) humans are more harmful than beneficial to the world," which is absolutely true.

Don't take my word for it- go back and read his arguments. He says things such as "Without verbal communication, there would be much less people... It's that simple."

But it ISN'T that simple, because taking away verbal communication would in no means take away the advanced thinking which created that communication in the first place. People will always find another way to communicate- just look back at my opponent's original example of Hellen Keller. Yes, she turned out well, but I don't think that anyone could say that this is BECAUSE she was unable to speak.

Look at Odd Job. You know, from James Bond. He doesn't talk. But he kills people. It's a ridiculous point, but hey, it's a ridiculous topic to begin with because it has no relevance to what sidlee was actually arguing.

As I said much earlier on, all he had to do was convince us of his point using arguments about verbal communication, which he has clearly failed to do. Ignore the straw man arguments and look for arguments about the true debate, and I feel that you will see what I see.

Thank you very much for reading, and thank you Sidlee for the debate."