Conformism cannot be avoided in today's society
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Conclusion
I now open the floor to the opponent who decides to accept. This is my very first debate on this site, so I am hoping this debate will be both educational and fun. Good luck!
As I have grown up heavily bullied as a child and teenager for not conforming to society, I strongly oppose this resolution.
1) Let's open this round with a definition of conformity: "correspondence in form, nature, or character; agreement, congruity, or accordance" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) . With that definition it is obvious to apply that to the molding of one's self to meet a "normal" social protocol. However, nonconformity in itself has its own "standards", if you will. To be a nonconformist is to be one's own person, and to not let outside influences alter your true character. Essentially, nonconformity has its own set of rules or guidelines, no matter how few they may be. So really even to be a nonconformist, you have to conform to a set of standards in order to be known as a "nonconformist". Really, nonconformity is just a title.
2) Let's apply conformism to today's social standards. We all are aware of bullying and its influence in the school, and I am in no way intending to take a stance on bullying in this speech. I myself have had experiences with bullying as well. Essentially, bullies bully their victims because the victims have quirks that the bullies may find irritating or annoying, so they force them to conform to their standards on how to act in order to quench their grievances (whether or not it stems from a psychological occurrence is irrelevant in this debate). And as we come to find out, bullying is not limited to the playgrounds of our old grade school, but it is found almost commonly in high school, college, and even in the adult world. Another type of bullying that falls under this category is what I like to call "subtle bullying". Subtle bullying isn't necessarily performed by one person, nor is it violent, but it's basically what we call social protocol. Say I have a habit of chewing my food loudly when I eat. My family I am eating dinner with will not find this appealing and will give me some sort of signal as to show their disapproval, whether it be a glare or even a slight smirk. This situation can also be applied to larger scenarios in order to fully show society's way of shaping a person's demeanor.
3) Finally, conformism is prevalent in our literal and everyday lives. Let's take driving, for example. If there were no rules or conformity whatsoever people would drive where ever they damn well please, whether it be off road, through houses, or into ditches, it would be chaos! Another prime example of conformity is the site we all know and love, DDO. There are guidelines as to what arguments are deemed desirable to the judges as well as how to properly refute them. I know there are many different ways to attack/judge arguments, but it is the debater's job to be able to conform to these regulations to ensure a good debate and maybe even a win, if we're lucky. Really, conformity can be applied to almost any everyday situation.
To summarize my constructive, I provided a definition of the word "conformity" and applied it to different aspects of conformity. Also, I proved why it is evident in modern society specifically through bullying and society's little nuances. Finally I literally applied the word conformism to our everyday lives.
My constructive is now over, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's response.
So Goths rising in the punk era, punks rising in the hippie era, hippies rising in the industrial era is all conformism? Then who was the first huh? Throughout history people have shown again and again that non-conformist rebellions are always possible to arise, and the same human nature exists today.
Go to the Middle East and be anything except Muslim, you're already a non-conformist. Go to Vatican City and don't be catholic, you are a non-conformist. Come to Britain on 11th November and don't do the two minute silence at 11 o clock AM for remembrance day, you are not conforming. The capacity to not conform in today's society is even more than in older days because we can travel worldwide to cultures whereby our very skin colour itself is a means of not conforming. Thus I really don't see how your point stands in any way whatsoever. Conforming is not unavoidable.
Your first paragraph lists several examples of quote "non-conformists" (the reason why this is in quotations is because I believe they don't exist, as explained later). I would like to point out that even though they're not conforming to the most prevalent social conventions around them, they're still conforming to the idea of nonconformism and the right to be different. Non-conformism is definitely an idea with actual purposes and beliefs, an idea in which you agreed with in your classification of "non-conformist rebellions", meaning that these people had a belief worth rioting about. Basically all anything needs to be classified as being able to conform to is an idea or purpose, and since nonconformism believes in being different than the popular opinion, it is qualified as conformism. This idea was even backed up with a definition in my constructive.
Moving on to your second paragraph. You begin to list several examples of where it is possible to be "non-conformist". However those examples can be misleading. Say I was an atheist and I, for some reason, thought it was a good idea to go on vacation to the Vatican, a very Catholic destination. Not only am I conforming to the idea of nonconformism, I'm also still an atheist, which is another classification I conform under. I may not conform to those around me, but obviously there are others in the world who are atheists and/or "non-conformists", so I would be conforming to them as well. I realize this is a very literal approach, but it still stands nonetheless.
For these reasons my arguments should be preferred and still stand strongly in the round. Conforming is impossible to avoid.
I shall use my opponent's retarded logic against him.
This is essentially his rebuttal:
If one is a non-conformist they are conforming to the idea of non-conformism
This shall be my equally retarded comeback:
If one is a confromist they are being non-conformists to the idea of non-conformism.
This is using circular logic and I would like my opponent to re-address my round 2 debate with a decent rebuttal.
I would like to say that the insults in my opponent's last rebuttal were completely unnecessary. There are multiple other ways to deal with responding to an argument, and this one was offensive. This should be one reason why you should down vote Con.
To respond to my opponent's rebuttal, I would like to point out that the idea of non-conformity has yet to be proven to exist in this round. I mean sure, my opponent gave you a few scenarios where he believes non-conformity could exist, but since I provided a definition of conformity and even applied it to show you HOW non-conformity could not possibly exist, I don't see why circular logic applies here. My opponent hasn't ever provided a counter definition in this round, nor has he ever explained how non-conformism exists. And since he never explained why non-conformism exists, we have no reason to believe why it should. Therefore the "circular logic" my opponent presents in his rebuttal cannot exist. Since this is my last speech, it is not possible for me to provide a counter-argument if my opponent decides to finally explain why non-conformism does exist, and this would be completely unfair to my side, since I was attempting to argue it the whole time.
To review the round:
Argument 1) I provided a definition of conformity and applied it analytically to the resolution. My arguments to my opponent's are further explained above.
2) This argument talks about how society will eventually mold outstanding people to conform to their standards, especially in the case of bullying. This argument practically went unargued throughout the entire round. This should go to the Pro side.
3) The fact that conformity is a necessary part of our lives in order to prevent chaos went unargued in this round as well. This should be in favor of the Pro side as well.
Basically all the Con provided you with were multiple misleading circumstances and a faulty circular logic argument. Now I hate to be "that guy", but since we have spent the entire round arguing the arguments Con brought up, it would be completely unfair to me if arguments previously not brought up would be brought up in the next and final speech, since I have no chance to argue them, and he had plenty of time to bring them up earlier.
For all these reasons, I strongly encourage you to vote Pro in that conformism cannot be avoided in today's society. I'd like to thank my opponent for a great first debate on this site. Thank you.
IF I define a vbfdjk as rtoihrotih then a non-vbddjk is the opposite of rtoihrotih obviously.
In the same way your definition of conformism was in fact merely a clear basis for defining non conformity i needn't go into unless you are retarded.
You never proved conformity exists because your justification was this:
If one is a non-conformist they are conforming to the idea of non-conformism
And I told you that I can equally prove, using circular logic like you, that non-conformity exists uding this:
If one is a conformist they are being non-conformists to the idea of non-conformism
Please return with an IQ of 100 :) Or more if you like.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.