The Instigator
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Travniki
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Being wrong is not always bad

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 3 votes the winner is...
Travniki
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 23072
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

Hi
Being wrong is not always bad is my resolution and I will be arguing as pro

First round acceptance
Second and third round cases/rebuttals
Last round summaries/rebuttals

Thanks
Travniki

Con

I accept
I define wrong as:

"a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked."
This comes from the standard freedictionary.com
www.thefreedictionary.com/wrong
Debate Round No. 1
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

Welcome to round 2 of this debate
For this debateDefinition of wrong are all definition mentioned on dictionary.com

Contentions - Being wrong, failing in something is necessary for students to learn.
If students never fail they will never explore. If you got everything right in the first attempt than you would not be learning anything.
Students who have failed know -
-Possibilities of mistakes that can be made at things
-These students have been through a downfall and If they strive to succeed than they would succeed as they have learned from the mistakes and know how to not repeat it.
- This students are brave, If they succeed after their failure that means they are creative and know how to explore and learn the right thing

There is no denying the fact that being wrong is part of successful learning and being wrong is most certainly not always bad.I urge a pro vote for this serious debate as being wrong is not always bad

Side note - Please no forfeiting Travniki otherwise I urge for all 7 votes
Travniki

Con


Holy crap It's hard being coherent...this is confusing, but i need to point out how Pros entire case is a circular argument


"Being wrong, failing in something is necessary for students to learn."

No it's not. Being right is necessary for students to learn. If a kid gets 50% on his math quiz, as opposed to getting a 100%, it isn't a good thing just because he now knows he needs to study. The only good would be if he had gotten an 100%.


"There is no denying the fact that being wrong is part of successful learning"

Yes there is....the only successful learning happens when you are right. Your argument is that being wrong helps you become right, that an evil can lead to something good...I say that one can be right in the first place, and despite the fact that wrongness can help you realize you need to work harder or whatever it is still inherently bad.


I agree with my opponents entire speech, being wrong can help you eventually become right, but that wrongness is still bad. Even if the problem is part of the solution it's still a problem.


My case in short, it is always bad to be wrong because the only alternative is being right. Just because being wrong can help you eventually become right doesn't mean being wrong isn't bad.


Pro needs to prove to us why someone should seek out to be wrong, why being wrong is ever a desirable thing. He has not. He suggests being wrong leads to successful learning. It doesn't. We could eliminate "being wrong" from the equation and we would have successful learning. If we eliminated "being right" we would not have any learning.
Debate Round No. 2
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

Hello ladies and gentleman
Lets make very simple before I start my case
Flaws
- My opponent firstly is assuming that being wrong is bad and as there are no arguments to support this claim; This argument can be dropped. Thus the opponent does not have a single valid arguments with evidence which can be taken into consideration by the voters.
Because of all this I urge a vote for pro

Contentions
- Being wrong at least teaches you something. What does being right teaches you? Nothing
- Being wrong gives your lethargic lives an excuse to explore, to correct your mistakes as no can be perfect. Does being right makes you think differently like a mad genius? I don't think so unless proven otherwise.
- If a person was always right than they will get bored and wouldn't be learning a thing. This is a very sad story :(
- People who are always right are coincidentally victims to excellence and risk-taking. This is obvious as the content which student is apparently excelling would be too easy for them. This also means that the student is not mentally or physically challenged which is very bad for them.
- If being right was the key to success than why would people like Sir Richard Branson and Albert Einstein be successful. These people I have mentioned had very sad childhood as they had difficulty getting things right. It should be obvious that if you have never failed before that either you are a prodigy or a person who goes to school where everything is too easy for them, are a coward and have not learned a thing. So sometimes failing can teach a person a lot of things.

So it should be obvious that being wrong is not always bad as one mistake can teach you a lot of things or maybe change your life.
Thus I urge a vote for pro.

Interesting fact (not part of my arguments) -: Being wrong, learn from your mistakes and avoiding future errors quick footed is the key to learning Kungfu and other martial arts
Travniki

Con

Pros resolution should actually be: Being wrong can sometimes lead to being good.

I agree being wrong can lead to being good, a bad thing often leads to good things. The holocaust led to more tolerance and an abhorance of racism. That doesn't mean the holocaust still wasn't bad.

Being wrong is always bad. It is never preferable to being right. The "badness" of being wrong can be redeemed by good that comes out of it, but the act of wrongfullness is always bad. For example, if Jimmy fails his math test but ends up becoming a politician because of it, the act of failing his math test is still intrinsically bad, this is because the act of being bad (the failed test) is compltetly divorced from any of the millions of possible outcomes or effects (Jimmy becoming a politician.)

Pro has made outlandish statements like "Being wrong at least teaches you something. What does being right teaches you? Nothing"


Here's the thing: If you are wrong in a situation you have the oppurtunity to learn, to become right. If you are right in a situation you don't need that oppurtunity, you already have everything you need.

Pro has literally pounded out one argument this entire debate, and it is completely irrelevant. It is that being wrong leads to self improvment, but it is through that bad act, the horror of ones wrongness that the self improvment comes. I agree that there is a possibility of redemption from being wrong if you realize it, but being wrong is always intrinsically bad because it means you have failed to attain the truth, failed to attain correctness, morality and righteousness. One should always want to be "right".

Being wrong offers someone absolutely nothing. It is simply the lack of "rightness" such as darkness is the lack of light. It offers nothing in itself and is inherently bad. All of Pros arguments come from eventually being right.

Oops I haven't quite been coherent.... but Ive shown why Pro has not held his BOP
Debate Round No. 3
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8

Pro

Rebuttals
Firstly because the con has mixed their arguements and rebuttals, I cannot tell the difference and also believe they have no arguments unless stated otherwise. Thus now i am going to rebut their rebuttals.

- The example of jimmy the politician and a maths failer actually supports my sad as even after failing his maths he becomes a politician. In the eyes of the public failing in the maths test would not be considered bad as it lead to a good outcomes.
Lets make something very clear
- The act of being bad and the million possible outcomes are releated
-- This is a 2 stage process
--- First stage you are wrong
----Second stage if you learn something, or achieve something the orginal act of badness is redempted and it is considered good
----second stage second scenario if you donot gain profits out of the act of wrong that means in only that scenario that being bad is always right

Opponent has forgotten that if you are always right that doesnot mean you already have everything you need. If that was true than the saying "no man is perfect" will be incorrect.

I never said seek out for failure i am merely stating that if you find yourself in failure donot always assume it is bad before actually going through the second stage (the process i have mentioned above). You always have a second chance to make wrong things right. The first chance should be considered a fluke as you never know what is going to happen.

Sir Richard Branson had a childhood of failures but still he is one of the richest person in the world does that mean his failures are bad

Being bad does not give anyone the right to make the presumption that its is bad

All arguments stand

I urge all votes for pro for follwing reasons
- I have a valid debeatable case unlike con whose case is a 2 sentence long
- I have better conduct and very convincing arguements which in pro's prespective does not contradict pro's case
Thanks for reading
Travniki

Con

Travniki forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
id accept
but i cant
Posted by dan564891 5 years ago
dan564891
Sorry pal, you're basically asking someone to accepting the debate, making them CON... meaning they would have it admit to being narrow minded and a little silly. No thanks
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Dev, this resolution is almost impossible to win for the Con side unless I go into pure semantics.

Sorry, won't be accepting this one...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8TravnikiTied
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: counter frozen
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8TravnikiTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit is reason for my vote....and i just agree with pro more......this is just a boomerang for travnikis breach in agreement....hopefully he can stay away from voting on my debates like we originally planned.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
d1a6r7s1h9i9t8TravnikiTied
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: I can't believe I'm going to give a win to a person who forfeited... But I'm gonna do it. Pro relied on one argument to try to uphold his BOP throughout the entire debate. Con refuted that argument thoughout all of the rounds (minus the FF'd one), and showed how it was flawed and horrible reasoning. Conduct is tied because con ff'd a round and pro made a horribly one-sided debate to try and get a free win. Kudos to con for still winning.