The Instigator
VAGNETTO
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rico_Cruz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Generalist approach > Specialist approach

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 92 times Debate No: 105606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

VAGNETTO

Pro

Is it better to be a specialist in a particular field, or a generalist, that knows alot of things, but lacks depth in any field? I assume, that being a specialist means having a very narrow scope of practical and background knowledge, which is of no help in everyday life. Plus it's really tough to start something over, when you've dedicated your whole life doing one particular thing. Generalists, on the contrary, have basic knowledge of almost every important sphere of human activity, but in fact they lack depth in order to be called professionals or specialists. Generalists have the freedom to choose their future vocation, as they have the foundation for any of them. In the contemporary world there are many specialists as well as generalists. But which of these two categories should be dominant? I'm looking forward to listening to your oppinions.
Rico_Cruz

Con

Hey there, mr. Vagnetto. As far as I can see, you are pro-generalists. Well, considering everything you've said, I should adress to the point, that the present standing of things revolves around specialists. You see, in order to make a huge mechanism run, there must be proper gears in proper places. The point is, that specialists are the gears of every mechanism. Every particular specialist excellently performs one particular action, just like a gear, that cannot change its form or size, for instance, but can easily be a part of a whole thing. The world badly needs specialists, especially in such fields as medicine, law and politics. You won't be afraid to be operated by a professional surgeon, or you won't hesitate to trust your case to a professional lawer, and you would feel safer under the rule of a professional politician. I guess, specialists can be also generalists in a way, for it's simply imposible to stick to one field only. People are born to be diverse and this diversity is an integral part of humans' nature. So one way or another, we still end up somewhere in the middle.
Debate Round No. 1
VAGNETTO

Pro

Yay! Thank you so much for joining the debate! This is my second attempt, because the previous one was a complete failure. So, specialists, huh? Let me see. I really like your comparison of specialists with gears. I agree, that a gear, that performs its function at its best has more chances to be successful. But wouldn't it be much more benefitial, if this gear could work despite its position in mechanism? Like, you've taken it out and placed somewhere else - and it's still going! Wouldn't that be awesome? So what I'm trying to say is that this kind of a gear reflects the creed of generalists: "adapt and conquer". Just kidding, I invented this one. But hey, I'm not that far from the truth. With the ability to adapt to various situations and being well-rounded, generalists have far more chances to deal with any task they're given. Yeah, they're far from being deep specialists in any particular field, but I'm convinced, that in the contemporary world people look for quantity, rather than quality. Today, preference is given to those who did more and embraced more than those who did one thing and did it as perfect as possible. I might be wrong, but the pace of the present life is too fast, so we cannot make long pauses. We just have to move on. And being a generalist is a key to success in this case.
Rico_Cruz

Con

Good point. But what makes you think of quantity-dominating world? Do you really think, that people neglect quality to pursue numbers? I cannot agree with that. What about doctors? Should they neglect quality in their labor? And would you agree to visit such doctors? That is the problem, quantity doesn't mean quality and vice-versa. You either do alot, but with mediocre quality, or you do one thing and do it awesome. Sounds like a choice for me, doesn't it? This issue is more about our own preferences and choice. We choose what we feel matches our way of thinking and mentality. The world needs both generalists and specialists, that's what I think. There shouldn't be any dominator of them. This two notions should be treated equaly, otherwise we would face crisis-like situations, don't you agree?
Debate Round No. 2
VAGNETTO

Pro

Well, frankly speaking I was leading to that point. A absolutely agree, that in this particular case equality should take place. Neither of them two should prevail. But the only addition to your point I want to make is that there must be the third player. Apart from generalists and specialists there should be a fused version of them two: Specialists, that know tons of things about other spheres of our life. Wouldn't that be amazing? This would demolish the existing segregation between these two types of people. Yep, strangely, but I'm not supporting generalists anymore. I give my vote for the fuse, for it's a golden middle and the most real one, that can already be implemented now. There can be no 100% specialists and 100% generalists, in my opinion. There's always something inbetween.
Rico_Cruz

Con

So, I guess this is it. We came this far to realize, that balance is badly needed. Of course, there are some asperities here and there in this statement, but overall it fits us, it fits our nature. Thank you for the quite strange debate I've ever took part in, but it was pleasure for me. Good luck to you!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.