Anger can be a good moral motivation
Debate Rounds (3)
Also its like this case that a girl in Florida jumped to her death because she was getting picked on. Instead of using anger in a positive way to overcome the bullies she used that anger to escape the bullies permanently. So in this case anger is viewed as a uncontrollable emotion because no one can control it. If anger can be controlled it should be renamed because it is viewed as something that cannot be controlled. So once someone has omitted that they can control it it is not anger. There fore anger can only bring about negative outcomes because it is uncontrollable.
If people don't do anything regardless of bad or good ways to lose weight, its a lose-lose situation for them. Since they are overweight they have to probably take pills for cholesterol or high blood sugar just to keep it down. This costs a lot of money if they take it on a daily basis. Wouldn't someone rather try to lose weight so they can avoid all of these additional expenses. Cause the bill will continuously add up and there will be future problems/complications they may have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
Another case that had the same outcome was America how they went into ware with Iraq. They went to war out of anger to avenge the lives the terrorists took for bombing 9/11. The result out of there anger put us millions and trillions in debt and it made the economy horrible. IF the U.S didnt act on such anger our society would of been a better one because we would have money and a better economy. So in these two cases are evidence that proves anger is not and will not be a good moral motivator.
The U.S. did not act out of anger but rather wanting to protect the United States from further attacks. The government is suppose to protect the people. No emotions had to do with the invasion of Iraq other than making sure that the United States was out of harm's way.
They did act out of anger because there are a lot of ways they could've avoided it. They could have spoke to Iraq demanding a treaty or any other way to put an end to the war without resulting the U.S to be effective negatively in any way possible. So for you to say that the U.S did not act out of anger is completely irrelevant because they had a lot of other options they could have taken so that they can avoid warfare. The emotion that had to do with the invasion of Iraq was strictly anger because it resulted in unexpected consequences and that is what anger leads to that is why anger defies all emotions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.