The Instigator
Jvon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
michaelzeng
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Anger can be good moral motivation

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 1 vote the winner is...
michaelzeng
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 389 times Debate No: 42836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Jvon

Pro

Their have been several events in American history that would not have happened with the use of anger for motivation. We were oppressed by the British with heavy taxes and and invasion of our land. What was the motivator to fight back? Anger, it pushed us to take down the people who controlled for years. We were not wrong for fighting the British because they basically had us under a dictatorship. We didn't fight them because it was the right thing to do. They were one of the strongest armies sin the world at the time. It was anger that pushed us to take over our own country, we got tired of being ruled and thought we should rule ourselves. The anger caused by the control gave a good moral motivation and helped us become the country that we are today. Anger is an emotion that we use to push us to do things we wouldn't normally do, a great motivator.
michaelzeng

Con

Anger is not a good motivator. It blinds people and limits their real desires. Anger is an emotion and it is not useful. It does not make sharp judgments for fights. Anger is is a quality of disobedience. As for the people of colonial America, it was not anger that motivated them to rebel. It was patriotism that influenced the hard workers to fight back and gain their freedom. They were pushed by hard dedication and love for their own and what they believed in. Thus, anger is not needed for fights.
Debate Round No. 1
Jvon

Pro

You say it's patriotism that pushes a person to fight. If you love your country, wouldn't you hate the opposing countries. Does hate not cause anger? Whenever you have something you love, if it's harmed you will feel anger. That is just human nature. You can't know love without hate, just as you can't know happiness without feeling anger. Anger is something that can push a man to fight for his love or defend his family. We are talking about a good moral motivation. Patriotism is not an example of this because, what if someone loves their country but their country bombing every other country. Is that a good moral motivation?
michaelzeng

Con

Patriotism is a great motivator. It isn't necessary that you will have to hate other countries. There is greater pride and love in that country. They do not have to hate other countries. The patriots can simply ignore the existence of other countries. The country will prosper without even acknowledging others. There will be no emotions of anger and it can be neutral. The will and love to fight others is also a good motivator. There can be precise and wise judgments instead of hateful angry thoughts. Anger can just create genocides and killings.
Debate Round No. 2
Jvon

Pro

The will to fight others? for no reason? that sounds kind of angry to me. A person uses anger to push them through tough situations. Hypothetically, if a man sees his mother get murdered, will he not be angry? Would you? My point is that anger makes you think about a way to solve the problems you encounter. It is the perfect good moral motivation.
michaelzeng

Con

Yes, it is the will to fight others. The will includes the pride of a person. A person needs to protect their pride. If their mother is killed, that person will respond to get mad and get revenge. Yes, it is human natural. They want revenge because it is their pride not because of anger. Anger will make unjust and bad decisions. Anger is not a good motivator. It can blind a person's true intentions. There are many other positive factors can be a good motivator, but anger isn't one of them.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
JvonmichaelzengTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins that anger is not necessary for patriotism or motivation. If it is not necessary, then Con's arguments about it being blinding also win.