The Instigator
Subhajit2012
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

A day when you don't come across any problem you can be sure that you are travelling in a wrong way

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,506 times Debate No: 25851
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Subhajit2012

Pro

A day without a problem means that we are perfect but nothing in this world is 100% perfect.
socialpinko

Con

Before I begin my rebuttal and case in favor of the Con position, I'd like to define some relevant terms.

Problem- some obstacle or unwelcome situation; contrary to one's preferences

Perfection- a situation or thing having the quality of having or being perceived to have no flaws


===Deconstruction of the Pro case===


Pro's argument is best summed up by the following: the concept of not coming across a problem is conceptually impossible since the world is naturally imperfect. From this his conclusion is a bit hazy. I take it to mean that if we judge a situation or thing to be perfect then we must be wrong. If I'm mistaken in this characterization of his argument, I invite Pro to correct me in the next round. The problem I have with this argument is it's view on what is or can be called perfection. There seems to be two options, (a) that perfection is an ontologically objective quality or (b) that perfection exists only in one's perspective of something in accordance with their subjective preferences. It appears Pro has taken the (a) position while I will take the (b) position in order to refute it. Now let's see first the problems with (a) and then why (b) is necessarily correct.


(A) Perfection as objective


In order for Pro's argument to work, perfection has to be something objective. If it wasn't then it could conceptually fit into someone's given preferences and thus 'exist' so to speak. In order for perfection not to exist in this world, it would have to exist as something akin to the world of Ideas in Plato's philosophy, Heaven in various monotheistic religions, Nirvana in Buddhism, etc. Regardless of the specific philosophy, perfection would not or could not exist in this world. There are of course problems with this position.


The first and most obvious problem with this doctrine is the dubious existence of other worlds which various philosophies and religions conceive. For example, there's no universal agreement on the existence of Gods which would seem necessary to posit the existence of a supernatural realm. Plato's Forms are a different matter, but there are legitimate objections to such a view, among them the third man argument and nominalism.


(B) Perfection as subjective


The conceptualization of perfection as full adherence to one's subjective preferences is more supported than the objective thesis. Ponder a thought experiment. Say that your only preference was to have enough food to live, have decent shelter, a nice family, and relative financial security. Now these conditions are not impossible to exist, at the very least they're far from conceptually impossible. Now if you were in the above situation, it would be incredibly hard to feel that your situation wasn't perfect. Just to say that 'real' perfection exists only in some otherworldly form wouldn't mean much to you if you had no interest in such a thing.


===Conclusion===


As we have seen, not only is the case for perfection as having objective ontology epistemically unsupported, but perfection as subjective fits in much better with the concept of preference satisfaction. So since preference satisfaction isn't prima facie impossible, Pro's point abut nothing in the world being perfect goes unsupported. Now since that part of his argument is shown false, the rest falls apart. Namely, his conclusion that there is some epistemic or conceptual problem in thinking that a situation is perfect is false if perfection can conceptually be attained.
Debate Round No. 1
Subhajit2012

Pro

Subhajit2012 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend refutation.
Debate Round No. 2
Subhajit2012

Pro

Subhajit2012 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend refutation.
Debate Round No. 3
Subhajit2012

Pro

Subhajit2012 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend refutation.
Debate Round No. 4
Subhajit2012

Pro

Subhajit2012 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Did we talk about that? Mah baaad.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
Social, what did we talk about scaring off noobs?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Subhajit2012socialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: