The Instigator
ShortWinded
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

All People should know how to fight.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 30622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

ShortWinded

Pro

*foreward* Thank you wheover takes this... Kind words and such. I hope not to provoke!

In my belief all people should know how to fight.

To know how to fight one must be in experience of such moments. Essentially to allow the knowledge to be present so that they posses the capacity to provide fortification of their own entity when necessary.
Beginner

Con

I believe learning to fight is not necessary. PRO's main reason for learning to fight is that it provides protection from potential physical dangers.. in some cases, your life. However, I feel our lives are insignificant. There are billions of people in this tiny world. We take up less than a tiny fraction of the universe.. our lives.. our short lives, is nothing compared to the eternity of time. Math: (x / infinity) = 0. This means that living 20 years is no different to living 1000 years. Why should we care whether we die or not? Objectively, it doesn't matter. All things will die. A renowned man may leave his spot in history for a few thousand years (Jesus Christ, for example), but 10,000 years? 20,000 years? 100,000, a million, a trillion, infinity.. the lifespan of Earth isn't even that long. We're alive, so what? What reason do we have for humanity to stay alive?

My opponent proposed fighting for self sustenance. I reject it by claiming there is no reason for self sustenance, for life, for anything. Only our animal instincts toward survival and reproduction keeps us going.
Debate Round No. 1
ShortWinded

Pro

Okay so first... Concessions to you.
Yes I am only a grain of sand on a beach. We are only a moment in time. The beach is only a portion of the world. The world is a grain of sand in the beach of the universe. So on and so forth.
And I know that you could most likely research and find me people who whole hartedly take this position in life. But I would be very willing to believe that all those people you find who have voiced their opinion in such a way... Really would have had to quite often "defend" their position against the masses.
I shall even go far out on a limb here and say that those people of such a viewpoint are about as rare as a single grain of sand on a beach perhaps?
And then. Sine I am proposing that they are such rarities. Would also then such people perhaps feel quite often un-agentic to the worlds more common goals. Being of worthlessness would perhaps tax that person past their very own capacity to go on? Past the very instinct to better yourself? Past the instinct survive as you closed with?
We (you and me) are both on here to better our capacity as individuals.
Jousting with our minds... Fighting to win this debate? No?
Protection from physical dangers was most defiantly insinuated by me. And I apologize only half for being vague with my initial statement. I was throwing only a literary "jab" to test my range.
Fighting even by dictionary standards will come up with a physical reference prior to reference metaphorically. But metaphorically explained definitions do indeed come up.
Learn to defend your mind, your soul and your body and you will be indomitable. Capable of making yourself the very best and beautiful piece of sand in the quantum of a moment that you partake in.

Joust with me Good Debater!
Beginner

Con

Very interesting figurative language, but the issue remains un-addressed.
My opponent proposed a viable goal toward which one could work toward in life.
What is the purpose of life in the first place? If life had no purpose, then any goals within are pointless.
Why must we pursue happiness?? Let's say we pursue happiness, what then, what now? Is it to give us something to do? Why must we do anything? Why is it paramount that humanity does something.. why must humanity exist? There is no reason for us to learn to sustain our lives simply because our lives are unimportant. Who cares if we've lived life to the fullest? In the end, we'll be gone, the earth will be gone, the universe may be gone and time continues.. forever. There is no reason for anything.
A person can be chiseled and refined to perfection, but this perfection doesn't last. It's transient nature calls into question everything humanity strives for. For now, humanity lives on, but why must humanity live on? Why live life at all?

There is no reason to fight. You could beat me to a pulp for your survival or for sport. There is no reason for survival, there's no reason for sport.
Debate Round No. 2
ShortWinded

Pro

Clearly one of us fights for his identity more than the other.
Beginner

Con

My opponent said fighting is important for self defense and life-sustenance. My rebuttal, an argument against any and all purpose, even life, ran uncontested. PRO proposed living life to the fullest replete with happiness, but CON negates this by touting the lack of purpose in life & happiness. PRO fails to justify seeking life and happiness, con therefore wins.

Enjoy life!!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
ShortWindedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: utilizing con's arguments, I find them to be meaningless and not worth reading. S&G to CON, because PRO can work on his a bit.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
ShortWindedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Spelling and grammar Con, because I rather like his fluid prose. Arguments Con for his brilliant devil's advocate position. I will indeed enjoy life.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
ShortWindedBeginnerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Dylip. I didn't read the debate either, but we're here to judge and award points based on who supported their argument the best, not who we agreed with before even reading the debate.
Vote Placed by Dylip 3 years ago
Dylip
ShortWindedBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't even need to read the debate. It's obvious everyone should know how to fight.