The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2-D
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Being an arrogant elitist is the worst personality

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
2-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,951 times Debate No: 38534
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Adam2

Pro

You better believe that if someone starts that elitist kinda attitude with me, I'm leaving the conversation, no matter how humiliated they are.
2-D

Con


Pro’s resolution sets him up to commit a logical fallacy since he would have to arrogantly claim omniscience to support it. In his opening round Pro opens by antagonizing any potential opponent by threatening to forfeit the debate, which would somehow humiliate Con as Pro flees from the debate.


Many ‘arrogant elitists’ are likely Myers-Briggs personality type INTJ which make up 1-3% of males[1]. Since they are thoughtful and isolated they may not have well developed communication skills and are often alienated from others so they may project a false arrogance (I think arrogance is usually a sign of insecurity). Pro is openly hostile to this isolated minority group and supports a common misconception that they are “the worst.” He is openly bigoted towards arrogant elitists refusing even to have a debate with one.


It’s left to me to step in and represent this at risk minority group since they were obviously frightened by Pro’s threats:


Logic Much?


Your resolution is itself a logical fallacy, an argument from ignorance, [2] since a claim like this is a claim of omniscience. For your resolution to be true you would have to be aware of every possible personality and verify that arrogant elitists are the worst.


You are not aware of a personality type that is worse so you assume that it is the worst personality type in the entire world, which is clearly not true. Your only statement in round one is a threat against those most qualified to answer your debate.


Was your Internet broken while you developed your well-crafted position?


You have listed two personality traits then claimed that this is the worst possible personality. A quick Google search gave me a top ten style list of bad personality traits. Sure enough, arrogant is at the top but conceited does not come up till number six [5].


I won’t argue that this list is accurate but let’s take an arrogant elitist and add another trait from the list. Lets say an arrogant elitist who is also remarkably lazy, dependent, temperamental and unreliable. This would obviously be a worse personality than one that is only an arrogant elitist with no other markedly negative traits.


Are there any mental disorders you want to threaten?


You failed to consider several disorders that can produce personalities that are far worse. Autism for instance often leaves the disabled completely unable to communicate [3]. Psychopaths have no empathy [4] and unfortunately the disorder can manifest as, “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of other”


Having no personality/ability to communicate at all or tending to repeatedly violate the rights of others are arguably worse traits.


They may not teach basic History in community college


You may not be aware of obscure historical figures like Hitler or Nero. They have a few personality quirks that are worse like homicidal mania and narcissism and both committed a massive slaughter of their citizens. They were also arrogant elitists though so yeah… they were really bad.


-


I hope Pro takes my point. Opening by antagonizing your audience by making threats and wild assertions that you can’t possibly prove does not set you up for a good discussion. There are clearly worse personality types.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[5] http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk...


Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

Arrogance is not necessarily bad, but being an elitist is bad. You're excluding people for bogus reasons. The KKK did this. The English and Danish empires did this. It's not like merit where you count someone in based on their own credentials. Elitism is excluding someone for being different.
2-D

Con

Arrogance is not necessarily bad, but being an elitist is bad

I agree, there was a lot of sarcasm in my opening statement. Arrogance is generally a bad personality trait. My point was that they may well be good people if you look a little closer.

Elitism

Yes, I have conceded that elitism is bad but this does not support your argument. That Elitsm is bad does nothing to refute my arguments. Your argument is not, "elitism is the worst personality trait," Which is a stronger postion but still difficult. My arguments still apply. A lazy tempermental elitist is a worse personality.

-

You have dropped the majority of my arguments (you have not refuted them) and haven't made any of your own. Remember you have the burden of proof meaning you have to prove your position. Without proof your debate simply fails. All I need to do is refute it and I have already brought up several strong objections.


Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

I give up. You win.
2-D

Con

Great, a well crafted resolution may be the most important element of a debate. I read around 30 debates before I started one and, if you can find a top debater with a style you like reading, their arguments can introduce you to a strong debate method and an understanding of logical fallacies etc.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Adam2

Pro

Let's just say something on both to end it lol
2-D

Con

Sure, check out the debate leaderboard I posted, it's a great help.
Debate Round No. 4
Adam2

Pro

Sure will
2-D

Con

I assumed you were trolling initially so I was pretty condescending. Just remember not to threaten anyone in round one and you'll do fine. Welcome to debate.org!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Lol suuuuuuuure
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Adam22-DTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to dissect the Pro's arguments and turn his resolution against him quickly while actually using sources to back up his statement. The Pro made an assumption and made very weak arguments compared to Con. Then Conceded.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
Adam22-DTied
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: My mistake. Pro did indeed concede in the 3rd round.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
Adam22-DTied
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: Pro Conceded.