The Instigator
ImmortalVoddoler
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Inquisit0r
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Inquisit0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 75952
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ImmortalVoddoler

Pro

I would like to start this debate by introducing myself as both brainy and brawny. This being said, I highly prefer my brainy side. Why do I prefer this side? Because humans main goal is knowledge. Don't believe me? Look in your hand. What's there? A phone? A mouse? Maybe even a laptop! These are devices that we take advantage of today, but we couldn't begin to imagine these if we never focused on brains. Checkmate.
Inquisit0r

Con

I accept this challenge, and thank my opponent for proposing this debate. I am also brainy, and in the process of becoming brawny, and thus I share similar insights that my opponent does. I assume that burden of proof is mutually shared, and I also assume that we may post contentions in the First Round. First, I will define what brawn and brains are:

Brawn (n.) - Muscular strength
Brain[s] (n.) - The ability to think and reason

Both of the definitions above were taken from Merriam-Webster's website. Now, with those two terms defined, I will begin my contentions.

1. Without brawn, we wouldn't have time to use our brains

As my opponent has stated, "Look in your hand. What's there? A phone? A mouse? Maybe even a laptop!" This is a truism. Indeed we are surrounded by a vast amount of technology created as a result of the collected knowledge of electricity, circuitry, mathematics, and computation. However, one needs to put this into perspective. We need to go back to the beginning when there was nothing but humans and the wilderness around them.

Humans are no different than any other animal in the animal kingdom. We are subject to the laws of nature like anything else. We needed to hunt game in order to put food on the table, we needed to actually cut down a tree to get the lumber to make the table. What's the ultimate point here? The ultimate point is that without brawn, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to use our brains.

Without our strength, we would not have been able to create our civilizations that in turn give us the opportunity to focus on using our brains. You can't be solving algorithms if you're starving to death, you can't be designing beautiful buildings they're being knocked down weekly by raiding parties. Ultimately, without the strength of men, their intelligence would never be opportuned to flourish.

2. What is designed with the brain, is ultimately created by brawn

Going back to a statement in my first contention, "We needed to hunt game in order to put food on the table, we needed to actually cut down a tree to get the lumber to make the table." This also ties into this contention due to the fact that often brainpower needs to be supplemented with brute strength for anything to get done. For example, an ingenious carpenter comes up with a new design for a table. He draws out his plans, and presents them to his colleagues. Now what? They can't just stare at the plans and wish the table into existence. They need the raw materials and labor needed to turn a tree into a table.

Anything that man designs needs to be built, and materials need to be processed in order to build the products. The computer you're typing on was drawn up in some office, but it was created by another person's labor. The materials were mined up by a miner somewhere, and probably shipped via boat with an entire crew of sailors. Without the brawn of workers and other personnel, the designs would be nothing more than drawings and ideas. With the brawn of workers, these designs become real, and they affect the world in a substantial manner. You can't just have brains without brawn, just like you can't have theory without action.
Debate Round No. 1
ImmortalVoddoler

Pro

To refute your argument, all the brawn in the world doesn't matter without brains. You can have a relatively small amount of brawn and a large amount of brains, and still cut down the tree and manufacture the table that you stated. This being said, you can have a relatively small amount of brains and a large amount of brawn, and neither come up with the means to cut down the tree nor be able to manufacture the table. As Stasavraam333 said in his comment to this debate, " Even going back millennia, traps were often more effective at catching prey than traditional hunting, simply because you didn't need to be a warrior to work/ construct one."
Inquisit0r

Con

I have found that the counter-argument is not sound in that it does these things:

1. It does not actually refute my previous arguments

It builds upon my opponent's ideas rather than refutes my contentions. Most still stand unchallenged. In the instances that they were challenged (i.e., "[y]ou can have a relatively small amount of brawn and a large amount of brains, and still [do the things listed]..."), there was no evidence given as to why my opponent is right and I am wrong.

2. The quote used is not sourced, and is too specific to be of much use

The quote, stated by Stasavraam333, does not cite anything to prove that the statement is in fact true. Not to mention, that the quote used is far too specific to contribute much to the argument. While traps may have been used, and are an example of rational thinking being used to increase efficiency, it fails to look at the bigger picture.

Once the animal is trapped, who would haul it back to camp? Who would protect the kill site from potential predators? Who would drive off scavengers, who could follow them to camp? There's only so much intellectual plotting and engineering one can do before they eventually have to rely on their muscles rather than their minds. It's a consequence of competing for resources in the animal kingdom.

One can talk about how we can engineer machines to ease our work, how we can reason to avoid conflict, but it's too idealistic to think that these things will always work, or that they excuse us from the terrestrial realities that exist (and always will.) You can't reason with the tiger, you can't engineer a substitute for all labor, and you can't automatize survival. This is simply how it is, and why brawn is especially important in the grand scheme of our evolution and existence in this world.
Debate Round No. 2
ImmortalVoddoler

Pro

You don't need very much brawn to accomplish any of this, really. Without our brains, we wouldn't have a chance to use our brawn. If we couldn't think of how to kill the animal then the animal would sooner kill us. Humans are the fastest growing species, and that's partially because we use our brains more than our brawn (at least, most of us do).
Inquisit0r

Con

My opponent's argument is very much lacking, and contains no real points that I haven't disputed earlier:

1. My opponent does not provide evidence for their claim

My opponent does not provide any evidence for their claims at all. In my arguments, I use reasoning and logic as evidence since this is more of a debate of ideas rather than fact, but my opponent does nothing to justify their claims than contradict mine. The Burden of Proof is upon my opponent when he contradicts my claim, and the Burden of Proof is upon myself when I contract my opponent's claim. This obligation to provide evidence or reasoning for a claim is not being followed equally here.

2. Instinct is a factor as to why humans and other animals can find ways to kill each other

My opponent has some substance when they state "If we couldn't think of how to kill the animal then the animal would sooner kill us" (sic), but does it really take a PhD to find out what kills something? No, and this is observed through nature, such as when a wolf bites down on the neck of its prey. Does it really know that cutting blood flow to the brain means certain death? No, and rather it is an instinct created through thousands of years of evolution. Animals don't study anatomy, they do what comes naturally. Their strength is at play when they hunt and kill for the most part, the rest is natural selection playing its role.
Debate Round No. 3
ImmortalVoddoler

Pro

You are using your brain more than your brawn when arguing with me, and you are clearly doing a pretty good job at it, too. Your brawn simply does not know the facts that you have stated, because facts rest, above all, in the brain. Pure brawn with very little brains simply cannot survive. You may argue that the inverse is true, but I argue that this simply is incorrect. How do I know that this is incorrect? Stephen Hawking.
For all of you who don't know who Stephen Hawking is, he is one of the greatest minds currently living on Earth, and he is paralyzed. What does this mean? This means that someone who can't use any brawn is still alive today. This being said, How many people do you know of who can't use their brains at all and are alive? That's right, none. Brains are crucial to survival, and brawn is not.
Inquisit0r

Con

My opponent is providing more evidence for his claims, but they're still not accounting for the bigger picture:

1. Brawn is crucial to the exhibition of intellectual pursuits

While there are great minds like scientists and philosophers that use their brains rather than their brawn to contribute to society, it's ultimately brawn that creates the environment required for such minds to flourish. This is a variation of one of my previous arguments, but I'll be introducing new points within to differentiate it.

What would all the books, all the observatories, and all the institutions of knowledge in the world be without the protection of brave men willing to go into combat with hostile elements inside and outside of our societies? What would Stephen Hawking be without the policeman enforcing the law, and the soldier protecting the nation?

Without the presence of brawn, our societies and civilizations would not have time to spend on academic and intellectual pursuits like Stephen Hawking's. We can't talk about spacetime if we need to be more concerned with security. What would my brainpower be worth if there wasn't someone else fighting my battles for me? The only reason we're debating on a website is because there are brave men and women willing to fight and struggle in our place.

2. My opponent's arguments are based around individual examples rather than the reality that surround us

My opponent does bring up a good example with Stephen Hawking. No one can deny his contribution to our understanding of the universe, but this is one man in a world of billions. He is an extraordinary one, yes, but no amount of inborn gifts will exempt a man from being subject to the rules and regulations of the natural world.

Natural law does not simply go away with the ages, and simply because we have created a mechanized society does not mean that brawn is any less important than it was hundreds of years ago. The reality that surrounds us will not go away, and it doesn't care if you're Stephen Hawking or Average Joe. Like I said, you can't automatize survival.

3. Within my arguments, I never stated that pure brawn without brains is feasible for survival

My opponent mentioned his in argument that "pure brawn with very little brains simply cannot survive", to which I say this is true, but I never mentioned this. Speaking of which, I never actually mentioned what ratio of brains to brawn would be feasible, but I did claim that it is more important in regards to the larger society. I don't know if this was intentional misrepresentation, but I'm making sure to clarify this.

I will be reserving Round 5 for rebuttals and a concluding statement, as making new arguments which my opponent can't respond to is unfair and unethical in my opinion.
Debate Round No. 4
ImmortalVoddoler

Pro

You do not need to use any rebuttals in your concluding statement, as I will not be posting an argument in this round. You clearly have the upper hand. Thank you for this debate. Although you are clearly the superior, I feel as though I have become better at debating through this argument. Anyone can read through this argument and see my improvement. Now that that's been said, and I feel that this was already implied, I concede.
Inquisit0r

Con

I thank you for providing this platform for debate. I acknowledge you as a worthy opponent, and honor your efforts. You have improved throughout this debate, and I'm sure that through practice and development of principles you will eventually become a significant member. Again, thank you, and goodbye.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stasavraam333 1 year ago
Stasavraam333
My pleasure!
Posted by ImmortalVoddoler 1 year ago
ImmortalVoddoler
Stasavraam333, this will be referenced in my next argument; it took a big chunk of what I was going to say.
Posted by Stasavraam333 1 year ago
Stasavraam333
Being both brainy and brawny, I (just like the instigator) am much more proud of my brainy side. I believe that without brain, there is no need for brawn; why fight when you can resolve things? In most real-life cases, all kinds of physical confrontation can be avoided simply by using your brain!

Even to construct vast structures (which require massive amounts of heavy-lifting), can be done by a (relatively) weak person, as you could simply engineer a system to lift heavy objects, without you having to lift a finger. Even going back millennia, traps were often more effective at catching prey than traditional hunting, simply because you didn't need to be a warrior to work/ construct one.

And even in dire situations, aut viam inveniam aut faciam. Using your brains, you can diffuse any situation, without having to resort to feral violence! Nothing good has ever come from violence and, most likely, never will, which is why brains is almost certainly more of a necessity then brawn.
Posted by daem0n 1 year ago
daem0n
Looks like this will turn into a "which is more important, the end goal or the means to get there?" type of debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
ImmortalVoddolerInquisit0rTied
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: Concession by Pro from the following statement by them: "I concede."
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
ImmortalVoddolerInquisit0rTied
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 concedes