The Instigator
Jonbonbon
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
jopo
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

DDO Olympics: Nerd and Fandom Prelims

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 5 votes the winner is...
jopo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 46111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Jonbonbon

Pro

The resolution we will be debating is as follows: "Resolved: The Borg's methods of establishing peace are more desirable than the Jedi's methods.

For visual aid of anyone who has not seen Star Trek I will provide some pictures.

Here is a Borg cube.



Here are some Borg.







My primary reason for supporting the Borg methods is as follows: the Borg have more practical methods of establishing peace.

I'll summarize the Borg's methods of establishing peace:

The Borg search the universe for civilizations to assimilate. Their assimilation integrates the minds of the people they assimilate into the Borg Collective, which is a collective consciousness of people. Each Borg has the purpose to serve the collective and assimilate all races. Their goal is to assimilate everyone, which will both create a universe where there is no war and where the people are most capable of achieving scientific advancement.

Now, the Borg Cubes may not look like the classiest spaceships, and the way they rebuild cities wouldn't be much better, but it's a small price to pay for universal peace and the ultimate scientific advancement.

The reason this is more desirable:

The Borg can absolutely guarantee universal peace and scientific advancement beyond what we can imagine. There would literally be no war, and the universe would thrive as a scientific community. We would have every thought of everyone that becomes a Borg. Every epiphany, discovery and philosophy would be known to everyone. That much information to start with is unimaginable and incredible for scientific advancement. After all of that knowledge is possessed, it wouldn't take long before we could actually discover everything about the universe that can be known.

I thank Jopo for agreeing to debate this with me, and I look forward to the arguments presented.
jopo

Con


I would like to thank Jonbonbon for coming up with such a fantastic topic to debate, and I look forward to the following duel that shall be of astronomical proportions. ;)



For a quick start I would like to follow in Jonbonbon’s structure and demonstrate just who the Jedi are:



http://static.comicvine.com...




And where they live:



http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net...



First of I would like to restate the resolution and offer a couple quick observations on this topic.



Resolved: The Borg's methods of establishing peace are more desirable than the Jedi's methods.


O1: First what must be seen is that we are debating which methods are more desirable, this means we must have something in order to assess desirability by as multiple characteristics can be seen as qualifying something as desirable - for example, if I were to discuss which was more desirable, a hamburger or a milkshake, an important first step would be determining if satisfying hunger or thirst were deemed as greater (if hunger is more pressing, than the burger would be more desirable, likewise thirst would favor the milkshake).



O2: My opponent is essentially valuing the effectiveness of the methods in her case. This is seen in how here justification is that the borg's methods are more practical.



My stance today is going to be one that looks beyond effectiveness, as these are simply the ends of an action. However, we must also look at the means required to achieve it. Therefore, my stance is going to be that the Jedi's methods are more desirable as they value individuality.



But first a brief background.


The Jedi are best described by the following:


"Originally formed as a philosophical study group situated on the planet Tython, the Jedi became revered as guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. As mystical wielders of the Force and of their signature lightsabers, their powers inspired all citizens in the galaxy. The calm, considered demeanor of the Jedi made them ideal brokers of peace in times of conflict or dispute." [http://starwars.wikia.com...]



They serve as peace keepers of the galaxy, and believe in mastering their own emotions in order to remain neutral in any given situation. However, one important aspect that separates them from their Borg opponents (in the context of this debate), is that they do not brainwash people into following their way of life.


Now to address the importance of individuality and discuss how the Jedi maintain it.


The concept of individuality is an important one as it pertains to ideas such as cultural progression. A factor that enables societies to be innovative and improve is the combination of unique, individual ideas. While the Borgs’ method for creating peace is effective, by essentially brainwashing everyone they strip the people they encounter of the individuality. Once someone becomes a member of the Borg collective they are no longer in possession of their unique identity. Whereas the Jedi create a peaceful society that allows people to continue existing as unique individuals. Seeing as this enables society to continue to progress and evolve, it is clear that this method of peace is beneficial because it has better long-term implications.


Debate Round No. 1
Jonbonbon

Pro

I would like to thank Jopo for that last post, and now I will get on to attacking her points and expanding on my own.

It was inevitable that individuality would come up in this debate, and it is not something I have personally overlooked.

Jedi methods may retain more individuality of the individual, but their methods aren't effective as a whole.

There are examples where a Jedi will go rogue. They start doing their own thing, and they become Sith. I will personally define "Sith" as follows: The Sith are an order of Force-sensitive beings who use the dark side of the Force. [1]



The Jedi and Sith are both force-sensitive beings who work on mastering their control of the force. While Jedi have good intentions, there is a very famous example of a Jedi master who became a Sith Lord: Anakin Skywalker. He started as a child devoted to good, and no matter how much the Jedi pounded their ideology into his head, he did eventually become a Sith Lord. He was responsible for the near extermination of the Jedi including a massacre of child padawans. The Jedi method of establishing peace didn't work in that scenario.

All I need is one fault in the system to prove the Jedi are less effective than the Borg.

The Borg already don't have rogue Borg without very extreme circumstances that can be overlooked by simple acceptance of the Borg methods of peace.

Here's why practicality should be considered most important:

When establishing peace, pragmatism should be valued above everything except for life. The Borg do not infringe on life unless they're attacked first. In fact, they generally don't even resort to violence unless attacked. Their goal is to assimilate, not kill.

The Jedi also don't infringe upon life unless attacked in a serious manner. This means we need to move to the next step pragmatism.

The Borg methods are the most pragmatic we have. Each and every species becomes part of their race, and their race is absolutely peaceful among itself. There are no civil wars.

Addressing individuality itself:

The Borg sound anti-individualistic, but it is not as bad as it would seem. In fact, the Borg find their link very comforting.

In the episode "I, Borg" we learn something about the Borg collective when a Borg is taken away from the Borg Collective by the crew of the Enterprise. His link is broken, and he actually finds it very disturbing and unnerving. He asks why he can't hear other people dreaming, as the Borg do dream when asleep and can hear each other's dreams.

To us that may sound like a lot to take in while taking a nap, but the mind of the Borg is accustomed to that and comforted by it. They hear each other's thoughts, and the way the reason they keep a small level of individuality is because they want the individual's knowledge to be added to the Collective. It's not a simple mind wipe. While they are still not entirely individualistic, they do retain a certain level of individuality.

While it may be true that we would lose no small amount of individuality in the process of becoming Borg, as a whole for the universe, it is the best option in the name of science and peace.

------------------------------------------------

Source:

[1] http://scifi.about.com...
jopo

Con

In the interest of simplifying the clash in this debate we must see that it is quickly boiling down to one of peace keeping methods that are valuing pragmaticism (borg) vs. individualism (Jedi).

To start by going down the flow of her last argument:

First, in the cold and calculated borg-like manner which she is advoating for, my opponent opens by assessing how ineffective the Jedi methods. To support this she turns to the example of Anakin Skywalker and his sad deterioration into Darth Vader, "He started as a child devoted to good, and no matter how much the Jedi pounded their ideology into his head, he did eventually become a Sith Lord. He was responsible for the near extermination of the Jedi including a massacre of child padawans." To this we need to turn to the following rebuttals:
1 - Anakin does not represent someone following the typical Jedi method for establishing peace as even his training violated the norms of the Jedi tradition - he was claimed to be too old already when his training started, and Yoda saw a potential for him to go down a dark path. However, he was trained therefore he represents an atypical case.
2 - Due to Anakin becoming a sith, he ultimately ends up on the Death Star with his son Luke Skywalker and the evil lord Darth Sidious. As Darth Sidious was torturing Luke, Vader has a revolation and suddenly picks up Darth Sidious, throws him over the balcony inside the ship and effectively kills him.
3 - An idea to bring up now, is that my opponent is looking for a perfect system through a pragmatic and idealistic evaluation of these theories - assuming that the best is the one that has no flaws, obviously this is not realistically achievable. However, it is unrealistic to assume that things will always function properly. The peace-enforcing method that ought to be desired is the one that can be realistically enforced and best compensates for errors in the system. This is best achieved by the Jedi method because it is more flexible in how it allows for individuality. The borg method says assimilate or die - indicating that only by joining their colony are you in the right. The Jedi method does their best to prevent people from harming others, but allows them to exist in their own way of life. This can be tied in below to my progress argument.

Next to evaluate her justification of effectiveness over individuality.
My opponent looks at how since both the Jedi and the Borg "don't infringe on life unless attacked in a serious manner" they both value pragmaticism, therefore we must consider which does it more. However, this leaves my opponent with a largely unsatisfied burden - to show how if both fulfill the base-level of pragmaticism, why must we consider which is more pragmatic. For example, if I was evaluating the value of Subway vs. McDonalds and said effectiveness must be considered because both value provided food in a quick manner (true); however, the jump my opponent is making is saying that because they both value effectiveness, what is most important is to first and foremost look at whom is more effective and use that to determine which is the most desirable food establishment. Just because two entities value an ideal to a similar base level, this doesn't provide justification for that being the primary factor to evaluate. Furthermore, we must see that looking at purely pragmatic ideas are flawed because they take the value out of humans. It would be easy to reach pragmatic decisions that statistically make sense, but don't value life. For example, if effectiveness of promoting peace is all that ought to be considered, then one could look to how the scarcity of resources causes conflict. Therefore, it would progmatically make sense to argue for decreasing the size of the population (kill people) in order to decrease the demand placed on the resources so that they may be more peacefully shared. The reason this isn't done is because something has to be evaluated beyond the purely statistical/numerical value of an action. Due to all of this we see that the idea of valuing effectiveness primarily falls.

Finally, I want to touch on how my opponent claims about the borg method that, "it is the best option in the name of science and peace" because this directly contradicts my progress argument, which my opponent has failed to attack. I stated that individuals are required for cultural evolution - this makes sense as evolution itself is based on the concept that favorable mutations appear in a population and then become popular; if things always stay the same they will never change. The borg system does not allow for this, while the Jedi does - given a long term implication as to why the Jedi method is more favorable.

Having assessed the arguments my opponent brought up in her last speech, I will quickly address the taglines of each argument my opponent and I brought up in our constructives and show how they've been covered.
My Opponent's:
"the Borg have more practical methods of establishing peace" - First of all more than the practicalness must be assessed. Second of all, this assumes a perfect society and does not best allow for fluctuations.

"The reason this is more desirable:

The Borg can absolutely guarantee universal peace and scientific advancement beyond what we can imagine." - Assumes a perfect universe is attainable and won't ever reach oconflict, and scientific advancement requires new ideas which requires individuality.

Mine:
"The concept of individuality is an important one as it pertains to ideas such as cultural progression." - Progresion has not been addressed.




Therefore I see that no other conclusion can be reached, but that the Jedi Methods are ultimately more desirable.




Debate Round No. 2
Jonbonbon

Pro

I would like to thank Jopo for accepting to debate this with me. It was rather fun. Now, let's take a critical look at the topic, and I'll summarize the main points and how I feel they go in my favor.

The do agree that the clash really comes down to whether the pragmatic methods of the Borg versus the individualistic methods of the Jedi are more effective.

The Borg

1) The Borg are the most pragmatic. Now it would be nice for my opponent to be able to apply the real world to this debate, but the Borg must be analyzed for what they are. To this point, my opponent has not provided an example of where the Borg system has failed in its objective internally. Thus, with the complete assimilation of the universe, we have no precedent to assume flaws. In fact, the system can only improve, which is part of my next point.

2) As I stated in my original case, when all people in the universe are assimilated, we will have every piece of scientific data and every known method of innovation known to the universe. Every unique thought that's ever been developed, and every one of the smallest ways to develop or innovate will be known. This can only lead to maximum scientific development in every field.

The Jedi

1) They retain a higher level of individualism than the Borg. I will concede that the Borg do not uphold individualism. However, the Jedi are not proven to be without flaw. While the case of Anikan can be disputed, we can at least agree that a Jedi became Sith. The Jedi methods are not be universally applicable, while the Borg methods are universally applicable. This is why the Jedi cannot be more pragmatic or more effective than the Borg.

2) The Jedi are not focused on innovation. Their only innovation is turned toward themselves. Since not every person can be Jedi, innovation will not be universal. Thus, while individualism is upheld, innovation is not.

As I said, I did address progression in my first speech, and it was never specifically refuted. Thus, I am still able to argue in those grounds, and I believe that we can logically conclude the Borg definitely have the advantage when it comes to establishing peace.

Thanks, Jopo, for the fun debate, and thanks to everyone else for reading!
jopo

Con


Thank you to Jonbonbon for the great debate.


First and foremost I want to pull a quotation from my opponent’s summary,


The do agree that the clash really comes down to whether the pragmatic methods of the Borg versus the individualistic methods of the Jedi are more effective.” Looking at the underlined portion, I just want to emphasize that, as my opponent admits in the first post of this round in which she states our topic, we are not solely debating effectiveness – we are debating which is more desirable. While effectiveness is an aspect that can play a role in this decision, it does not have to be the main factor for such decision and my opponent has failed to illustrate why it should be.


Having addressed that I shall use this post to summarize the two key points of clash in today’s debate, and show why you must ultimately select the Jedi as the victors.


Pragmatism vs. Individualism


- Individualism is a more unique point to vote on as pragmatism is achieved by the Jedi as well. In her round 2 post, my opponent explained how both organizations valued pragmatism to some extent; she then went on to address how the Borg’s method is more desirable because it is more pragmatic. However, my opponent failed to address my critique stating that she must also explain why, if a base level of pragmatism is achieved, we must evaluate it to a further degree. If both are pragmatic to some extent, a reason why the Jedi methods are preferable are because they also achieve individualism which the Borg do not.


- Practical world application. My opponent claims that since I haven’t shown an instance of the Borg method failing this point doesn’t stand. However, what needs to be seen is that the Borg mentality is “assimilate or die” – they’re overly pragmatic approach is too black and white. The Jedi allow people to still exist on their own right.


Progress


- Cultural progression requires new thoughts and individualism. This is an argument that still has not been taken out. As I state, the process of a culture evolving with new ideas – be them scientific, social, etc – requires individualism because it requires unique thoughts. My opponent admits that the Borg do not allow for individualism, therefore the Borg cannot have progress.


- The Borg’s goal is not progress. Looking to my opponent’s summary, “when all people in the universe are assimilated, we will have every piece of scientific data and every known method of innovation known to the universe. Every unique thought that's ever been developed, and every one of the smallest ways to develop or innovate will be known. This can only lead to maximum scientific development in every field.” First of all, we need to see that we can’t only focus on the knowledge we have now. Long term we need new ideas which mean people need to pursue their own goals. If we simply collected all the scientific ideas of people from say the 12th century, we wouldn’t be able to combine those to achieve ideas like string theory. Progress requires constantly moving forward. Second, the Borg aren’t focused on cultural progression as their goal is “assimilate or die” – they don’t intend on putting members into labs to explore new ideas, or expand off of the thoughts they collect. They intend on maintaining that everyone is part of their collective.


- The Jedi’s focus. In her summary my opponent claims, “The Jedi are not focused on innovation. Their only innovation is turned toward themselves. Since not every person can be Jedi, innovation will not be universal. Thus, while individualism is upheld, innovation is not.” However this returns us again to the allowance for individualism in the Jedi method – their method of obtaining peace allows others to still pursue their own interests because they allow them to lead their own lives. Therefore, while the Jedi may not actively walk up to someone and say, “since we’re interested in innovation you must research this topic” they, unlike the Borg, allow someone to say that to themselves.



Evaluation of these key points of clash show why the Jedi’s method for obtaining peace ought to be seen as desirable over the Borg’s.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Thanks :D
Posted by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
I'm liking this debate
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
As both a Trekkie and a Star Wars fan, this debate is official AMAZING!!!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 2 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
JonbonbonjopoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Both contestants tied in conduct, as there were no major breaches. S&G goes to pro, as she had only one noticeable error, whereas I counted four from con. Arguments go to con, as she successfully argued that individualism as found with the Jedi is more desirable than the pragmatism of the Borg. Pro attempted to equate effectiveness with desirability, which was her downfall. Con successfully illustrated that the approach of the Borg is too simplistic and prone to murderous paradox, while that of the Jedi is nuanced and tailored to fit a more realistic world. Sources go to con. As a judge, I declare Jopo as the winner of this round.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 2 years ago
MoralityProfessor
JonbonbonjopoTied
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 agree largely with Lordgrae. As the resolution was 'desirable' methods of establishing peace, as opposed to 'pragmatic' or 'effective', arguments go to Con, as maintaining individuality is certainly a desirable characteristic to uphold when establishing peace. Though Pro holds that the Borg do have some individuality, overall, it seems that they are far from retaining even a basic level of individuality. The debate was well fought on both sides, though.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
JonbonbonjopoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate- tie.
Vote Placed by Lordgrae 2 years ago
Lordgrae
JonbonbonjopoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was convinced by the arguments for the jedi. Despite my distaste for the Jedi (partially stemming from Jar-jar binks.) I was convinced that individuality and choice is a better system for cultural development are more desirable. Had the resolution stated effective instead of desirable, I would have voted pro. I cannot really give sources to either side, and both were good enough in conduct and reasonable in spelling and grammar. Thus I, as a judge cast my vote.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
JonbonbonjopoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I came away from this debate believing the Borgs had a more desirable method for obtaining peace. Con's best argument against the Borgs was that they lose individualism. However, pro showed this wasn't completely true. Upon becoming a Borg you still maintain some individuality. I also wanted to disclose that I'm one of those rare individuals who have never watched Star Wars or Star Trek. So I definitely didn't have an opinion on this subject before hand.