The Instigator
Josh-on-life
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,183 times Debate No: 8318
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

Josh-on-life

Pro

Why anyone would feel apathy is an ideology is beyond my understanding. For the last 3 years I have watched a decline in society for which there are many reasons, apathy being one of them. If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae. I know that my opening argument is flawed with Ad Hominem (attacking the individual) but I think that it is the case that this is a very much individual argument for which different people have different opinions and requires personal defence.
Cody_Franklin

Con

Let me just start off by saying that I'm quite intrigued by your choice of resolution, so this should be an interesting debate.

First of all, I'd like to point out that, overall, you give absolutely no reason that apathy is not an ideology; you say it is 'beyond your understanding' why people consider apathy (defined by merriam-webster's as "lack of interest or concern") to be an ideology (defined by merriam-webster's as "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"); from that comment, you extend your argument into what you even admit are Ad Hominem attacks; this means 2 things:

1. You attack people who are apathetic, not the idea that apathy can be an ideology.

2. You claim that people who are apathetic are narrow-minded, but in attacking these people relentlessly, you yourself are being extremely narrow-minded, just the other side of the coin, so to speakl so really, your argument is setting up a giant double standard: ("If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae.")

While I may not agree with apathy, that doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology; it would be as hard to change their outlook on society and the human race as it would be to change yours.

And honestly, society hasn't been declining for ONLY the past 3 years. There are plenty of times where society has been dismal at best. The Dark Ages, for example.

So, to close out my opening argument, it comes down to this: Either you vote CON, because we have to accept that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining social bonds, and because my opponent doesn't actually defend his side of the resolution, or you can vote PRO, which advocates slaughter of anyone caught not being appropriately passionate about society (sounds familiar...), and provides you, the voters, with a lot of Ad Hominem attacks (which he admits puts a lot of flaws in his argument). So, CON = Acceptance of truth, PRO = Personal attacks and social "cleansing". I'll let you guys decide. Until then, I await my opponent's next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Josh-on-life

Pro

Josh-on-life forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Con

My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post.

1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior.

2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken.

In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate:

PRO:
-Ad hominem attacks
-senseless slaughter
-lack of proof of the resolution

CON:
-Acceptance of truth
-encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them
-more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution

If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so.
Debate Round No. 2
Josh-on-life

Pro

Sorry for my forfit, revision took up my time and i do have much better things than sitting arguing at my PC with randomers, not that i dont love to argue with you :/

An again sorry who are you talking to? Your argumet is with me stop only refering to me, talk to me. An argument where you present your claim to whoever is reading isnt an argument i can agree with give me your arguments not the sad bastards judging us. It makes you come across as arrogent.

Anyway from your two argument that you would much rather pick hole in my veiws than take a side. you are Con which says to me that you stand by Apathy as an ideology. Dont you think that degrades you as a human being. Doesnt it scare you that there are hundreds who, as you say from your oh so facinating deffinitions:/ (which it seems youve put far to much time into reaserarching), have a lack of consern for life. I find it sad that in light of the fact that religion is a load of very old b****cks that people lack enthusiasm for their one and only existance in this world. I know you may like to look down your nose at me and would more than happily type up your stuck up arrgument and click the subbmit button and feel a great sence of satisfaction, (for watever screwed up reason), than search you own soal and realise just how pointless this all is in the light of everything
Cody_Franklin

Con

It's fine, I can understand that real life takes precedence; still, you make it sound like debate is insignificant when you say 'I do have much better things [to do]...'; I like this activity very much, however.

And while I am arguing with you, I am debating for the voters, since I am trying to convince THEM, not you; if I could convince you, there would be no point in debating. So please, first of all, don't call me arrogant, and don't insult the judges; that inherently makes your yourself arrogant for assigning us such labels; second of all, this is yet another batch of personal attacks that you are using; finally, this personal assault, voters, takes no place in the round. I simply thought that I ought to defend my integrity as a person and as a debater by covering this.

Now then, I am arguing against the idea that apathy is not an ideology; obviously, poking holes in your side of the case is going to help me accomplish that goal, especially since you have not answered any of the arguments which I have presented. Also, it is not difficult to look up an internet definition of terms for the purpose of debate, so, again, please refrain from using personal attacks, especially when I am only attempting to better the quality of this debate.

Additionally, I don't think that being apathetic degrades the Moral Worth of humankind; regardless of the ideology of a person, every human life has Moral Worth. And, since this is a question, I will answer no; I am not scared that there are hundreds of have lack of concern for life; especially when the number, as you claim, is only in the hundreds, compared to the billions of other people on earth.

Finally, again with the Ad Hominem attacks, I don't look down my nose at you at all; it is because I respect you and this topic that I took the CON side of this debate; also, I do not believe that my argument is stuck up; you are entitled to your opinion, but saying that to me in a debate round is both irrelevant to the topic and outright disrespectful; do not forget that you are the one who posted this topic; you should have been prepared for any potential arguments. And, as far as this debate is concerned, I do not think that it is 'pointless' at all. Through debate, we learn, we grow, we gain a lot; if you want to insult this debate, especially on a topic that you created, please, feel free, but when you find some relevant arguments, please post those also.

So, voters, you can vote on either my (CON's) unrefuted arguments in my last post, or you can vote on the constant personal attacks and outright insults that my opponent makes. If you need a copy of my last post for reference...

"My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post.

1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior.

2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken.

In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate:

PRO:
-Ad hominem attacks
-senseless slaughter
-lack of proof of the resolution

CON:
-Acceptance of truth
-encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them
-more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution

If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so."

For the sake of logic, reason, and the spirit of debate, please give this round to the CON.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Pro's arguments were pretty weak. And he forfeited. CON.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Several of my friends and my sister are apathetic. Of course it is an ideology.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Trying to look that much into semantics is really painful.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
f****** is therefore not one of that ideology's characteristics.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Of course apathy is not a f****** ideology. It is apathetic about whether anyone is f******.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I think I will just for the fun of it.
Posted by MistahKurtz 8 years ago
MistahKurtz
I was going to accept the challenge but I don't really care about the resolution.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Josh-on-lifeCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Josh-on-lifeCody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Josh-on-lifeCody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Josh-on-lifeCody_FranklinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Josh-on-lifeCody_FranklinTied
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:07