The Instigator
bluenor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
outspoken123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Do people achieve greatness by finding out what they r good at and develop that skill above all else

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,715 times Debate No: 67478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

bluenor

Con

One could be an expert in degrading other people but just because he is great at making others feel bad does not mean that he achieved greatness. While some people achieve greatness by developing their natural skills, not all of it results in good; developing one attribute above all else leads to destruction, not greatness. Greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Developing one skill above all else does not lead to greatness for it may lead to destruction and infamy. Flourishing in one skill may lead to deaths of family members. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the protagonist Victor Frankenstein suffers dire consequences for developing his skill in science. He uses his talent to create the creature, but the creature lives a miserable life due to his physical appearance and murders Victor's entire family as revenge. Frankenstein was able to create the creature because of his talent in science, but as a result his family was destroyed. Devastated and having no family, Frankenstein learns that developing one attribute above all else leads to destruction instead of greatness. While Victor lost his family due to his one skill in science, developing the aptitude a great leader can also lead to destruction. Victor may have been excellent in science; that was his skill that he exceled in above all else. WIth his skill he ended up creating a monster that killed his entire family. Therefore developing a skill above all else does not lead to greatness because it can also lead to destruction
outspoken123

Pro

Yes, they do.

First, let's define "greatness". It seems the OP means extreme professional success, so I will stick with that definition for the purposes of clarifying this question.

To succeed so wildly, the person must be an expert at a particular skill or subject, more so than all those around him or her. To become an expert, ignoring prodigies, he or she will have to develop that skill. Popular research cites the amount of time required to develop a skill into expertise is 10,000 hours - an enormous amount of time. We can assume that the average person also needs to eat, sleep, work, etc., so these 10,000 hours would have to be extra time squeezed out from the leftovers. Needing to use this much time to become not only an expert, but an expert more accomplished than all those around him or her, means that he or she won't have much time to devote to developing other skills. Thus, this skill will be developed "above all else", as the OP states.

As for "finding out what they are good at", it is only logical that 10,000 hours devoted to perfecting a skill the person already has a natural inclination for will be more efficient than another skill. In addition, it is also more likely that the person would choose to devote this time to a skill he or she already notices that they are good at because it's already more relevant to their life, probably more often used.

Finally, let's talk about alternatives. Is it possible for people to achieve greatness is other ways? Sure. But I think it's clear that the OP was asking if this particular method was a path to greatness, and it certainly is.
Debate Round No. 1
bluenor

Con

You are only thinking in one direction. I could knock off your entire argument by simply stating... what if the person was extremely good at being bad? Look at Adolf Hitler. He was a persuading leader and he was too good at what he was doing (in a bad way).However, did that allow him to achieve greatness? No, it didn't. You can't simply achieve greatness by being good at what you are doing. Again, as I stated in my first argument, greatness is where one is recognized because he has provided a beneficial cause to the public and is looked up on. Hitler was good at being an evil tyrant. Did he provide a benefical cause to the public? No. Actually the quite opposite in fact. Advocates of Hitler firmly believed that he was the ultimate leader and together, they murdered about 11 million people during the Holocaust. Hitler built his reputation as a leader well enough to lead an attack that killed 11 million, innocent people. Developing his skill as an influential leader did not make Hitler a great person but instead brought him infamy and led to total destruction of innocent people.

Your definition of greatness was where a person achieved "extreme professional success". What does "extreme professional success" mean??? This is an opinion of yours so it's different for everyone. A garbage man could view his promotion in his job as extreme profession success. Very different than what you had in mind.

By the way you didn't answer the question. The question was whether you achieve greatness by finding out what you are especially good at and developing that skill solely. What you did was give me a "How-To" on becoming an expert which is to work your butt off for 10,000 hours. Totally irrelevant. lol
outspoken123

Pro

outspoken123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bluenor

Con

oh come on. you gave up too easily
outspoken123

Pro

Okay, I'm responding because I don't like forfeiting rounds, but honestly, I think this debate is going nowhere because of how vague it is.

Sure, if someone found out that what they were good at was being malicious and then developed that skill, they would not be achieving greatness in your definition of the word. But that would be impossible in the first place. No one is naturally good at being bad. Being bad is not a skill. It's a vague concept. Skills that people can naturally be good at (be predisposed to genetically) are running fast, replicating art, etc. Skills in of themselves cannot be good or bad. How they are used determines that. So if your counterargument to people becoming experts and thus achieving greatness is that some people are experts in being bad, that is a very simplistic view of the world.

Define "good" and "bad"; define how people "find out" what they are good at; define whether "good at" means genetically predisposed or something they've already purposefully worked on; define "skill". This question is too vague.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
Longline
your idea of greatness, to me is completely wrong. some one can be the smartest on the planet. and still it will mean nothing. it is only consider greatness when other humans put such value on it. a president can save billions of lifes, if the world does not value such actions, it will never be known as a act of greatness.

The kings who rule before this time. what they did is only valuable and consider greatness after consider what we value today as great achievement. usain bolt is an example of this, because he set the world record, the world know that this task is a hard one, so they consider his achievement a great one, but right under our noise, other athletes face much much more hardship just to make it to the Olympic game, even if they did not win, their struggle should have been consider of great achievement but yet they are left unnoticed. have they accomplish nothing, or more then mr Bolt?
No votes have been placed for this debate.