The Instigator
crackofdawn
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
karththegeld
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

In a world without negative emotions, there will be no positive emotions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 11 votes the winner is...
karththegeld
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,213 times Debate No: 6253
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (72)
Votes (11)

 

crackofdawn

Pro

This is a philosophical debate. My argument is that if nobody in the world was ever sad, angry, annoyed, etc. there could be no happiness. As far as I see it you can't have positive without these negative emotions. If you were permamently happy then you wouldn't be happy. You would just be normal. In this debate the phrase "positive emotions" should be defined as an emotion that makes you "feel" better than normal. Thus, if you were always happy you wouldn't be happy. You would just feel "normal." It's only by experiencing things such as sadness, depression, and anger that you can truly understand what it means to be happy. Without those emotions you wouldn't feel any different than usual and wouldn't "feel" anything. This means that with the balance of good and bad neither can exist without the other. I will explain into further detail in the next round.

I wish my opponent good luck.
karththegeld

Con

Thank you crackofdawn of starting this debate.

My opponent argues that without any negative emotions, positive emotions become neutral. So happiness then becomes normal. And, without feeling sorrow, you cannot understand happiness.

My opponent fails to realize there are degrees of happiness. Yes, happiness would become normal, but that is if there is only one level of happiness. A person would be moderately happy if they got an A on a test. A person would be unbelievably happy if they won $1,000,000. If the moderate happiness is the norm, then the unbelievable happiness is is a positive emotion, by my opponent's definition of "makes you 'feel' better than normal."

Happiness is defined as good fortune. Even in a world with no negative emotions, good fortune would be better than the norm; so, there is happiness. Therefore, it is not necessary for the existence of depression, anger, and sadness for happiness to exist.

All definitions courtesy of dictionary.com.

I wish my opponent luck and await his response.
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this topic.

I have to admit I had never thought from your angle before and I hope I don't end up contradicting myself. I think I can persuade the readers to my view but if not then perhaps you will have persuaded me. So lets get started.

SUMMARRY OF CON'S ARGUMENT: He's stating that because of the degrees of happiness the "lower" happiness would become normal and the "higher" happiness positive.

In a world with negative emotions I can only see one of 2 situations that would cause this:

a. Nothing bad ever happens.

b. Humans can feel no negative emotions

Well with choice "a" it is obvious illogical but because of the philosphical nature of this debate we must discuss it. In a world where nothing bad ever happens nothing good can ever happen. Bad things to one person can be good things to another.

EXAMPLE: (going with my opponents example) A man win's $1,000,000 dollars. That's great for him but what about all the other lotto players and the owners of the lotto themselves. The owners lose money and the people who didn't win, well quite simply, don't win. The majority of people aren't happy with losing and the majority of people aren't happy when they lose money. They're actually unhappy.

Choice "b" is also illogical but that doesn't matter due to the fact that we're discussing an impossible premise, which means it can exist in an impossible world. Humans can feel no negative emotions I believe means they can't feel any emotions. If they can't feel any emotions they can't feel positive emotions. Let us say for discussion's sake that they can feel only what we would describe as positive emotions. Well this is impossible by human nature as because if people start at a certain level not everyone will be at the "lower" level normally. They will rise to a mid level because some people with have better luck, better attitude, easier going, etc. and rise in happiness. This means that the emotions below that "level" will become negative emotions and since this debate is over whether or not in a world WITHOUT negative emotions there will be no positive emotions this argument is null. It's null because this world would develop negative emotions of its own, just not as negative as the ones we have in our world.

CONCLUSION: The world can't have everybody being happy all the time. While in this proposed world of my opponents the "bar" of happiness would be raised it would just raise above other sections of happiness making them negative as the definition of a negative emotion is something that makes you feel worse than normal. By my opponents defintion he is assuming that everyone in our world starts out in a bad mood. It's precisely because of his degrees of positive emotions that his world can't work. People will raise the bar of "happiness" thus leading lower parts of "happiness" to become negative emotions. The only way a world can have no negative emotions (or positive emotions really) is for their to be no emotions at all. Having only one type of emotion contradicts having a positive or negative one.

EXAMPLE:
With electricity there are positive and negative charges. Without one the other can't work. In a world without negative charges their would be no charges period because positive charges can't work without negative charges. Without the negative charges the positive charges wouldn't have any "charge" thus deleting charges altogether. Switch in "emotion" for "charge" and you have the exact summary of my argument.

Vote PRO.
karththegeld

Con

Thank you crackofdawn for your well-thought out response.

My opponent started by outlining two possible situations in which my argument works.

I agree that situation "a" is illogical.

I disagree that situation "b" is illogical. Situation "b" is that humans can feel no negative emotions. Going with the example that a man wins $1,000,000. In this situation, humans can feel no negative emotions, so the other lotto players and the owners of the lotto cannot feel negative emotions. They would have to feel normal which is a little bit happiness. My opponent thus contradicts himself.

The next argument of my opponent is that situation "b" is on an impossible premise. But this entire debate is based on an impossible world. So, situation "b" still stands.

The second part of the second part of my opponent's argument on why situation "b" is illogical, is about human nature. But, if it is as my opponent says, then a world with no negative emotions cannot be sustained, it cannot exist by opponent's case. In other terms, if the level that is normal changes than in a world without negative emotions, the normal level will rise to mid-level of happiness. Then, anything worse becomes negative. More contradiction in my opponent's case.

My opponent must prove that a world without negative emotions can never have positive emotions, but he contradicts himself twice, and presents illogical arguments. Thus I urge you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
I take the same position as meganrihanne1992x on this, I had a hopeless argument. Now comes my question, why did y'all vote for me?
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 7 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
I have to agree with u cracko
To truly know hapiness you need to have downfall, sadness grief annoyoance
to truly appreciate what happeness is

i really dont know why your not winning this arguement its preety blatent your statements are true
Posted by 4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6 8 years ago
4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6
You are unwelcome. It was ended due to your blatant disrespect.
Posted by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
Thank you for ending this.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
I have no interest in being any part of your idiotic and disrespectful tirade. Discussion is beneficial, but you have pushed it past that point. I am not interested in continuation.
Posted by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
1. What is wrong with being critical? As you choose to argue with me about everything, I choose to criticize you about everything. Einstein made a gesture and is known worldwide for doing so. Does that not deserve credit? You are not better than Einstein. You never will be.

2. *sigh*

3. ----

4. True, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

5. People forget, there is no specific time when they forget, they just happen to forget. Similarly, I just happen to forget. Again, I do not think this is hard to understand. The fact that you are making a big deal about it may imply that you know you are wrong and are using this as a defense.

When you "correct" someone's beliefs, then you think that the person is wrong. In most cases this is fine, but never should you "correct" belief in God(s). You do this, it is disrespectful, and just outright dumb. It cannot be proven that God(s) exist, it cannot be proven that God(s) do not exist. You cannot "correct" the belief in God(s), do not do it.

This is getting boring. Understand that what I did applied only to this situation, it was not a logical pattern that was meant to apply to other things. It was there simply to help you understand that usernames and nicknames are names.
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
1. Has anyone noticed how critical of me he is? I try to make innocent points and all he does is attack me. The lame personal attacks never work. Einstein made obvious notions on what research concluded. He made no gesture that you or I could not have.

2. *I retain my boredom*

3.

4. Usually when I use words, I use my muscles, too.

5. People forget when they have forgotten, not when it is convenient. Again with the lame personal attacks. Victory does not exist for me. I do not want it. It is the end of a flow of ideas.

He is very random with his personal attacks. People have beliefs. I am not selfish. I am not self-centered. I try to correct their beliefs. I believe that everyone's beliefs matter. I am not interested in destroying society by not caring.

I know that commas and common are not comms. That is my point. That it does not work. Therefore, neither can yours. That it what "=/" means.
Posted by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
1. Again, it all amounts to nothing. Respect given, respect returned. I cannot come up with a single-time when you have respected me. Why should I respect you? Einstein was a genius. You are not considering that what is obvious today was not obvious then. So, if you went back in time or bothered trying to see it from Einstein's perspective, then you would realize it was not that obvious.

2. needs an example, which I am trying to come up with

3. ----

4. No, we move with our muscles not our words. We would function without words.

5. No I am not. I DID NOT LIE. I am a person, I forget things. This is one of those things. Is this hard to understand? You are like a leech. You feed off others. Your victory lies in the victims mistake.

When people ask "what is wrong with [viriuncte...]?" to me, you, who happens to be nearby, respond with "I argue things that I disagree with." or "I think that other people are stupid for believing ____." or "I am defending my views." or "I think that _____ is stupid because of _____." or in one particular case "God is stupid, there is no such thing. He cannot exist because of ______. If people believe in God, then they are stupid/hopeless/something like that." You are an idiot with no life. It does not matter if God exists or does not exist. People will still believe whatever they want. Deal with it.

No, I do not claim that any four letters in common mean the same. I was trying to point out the NAME part in all of this. You are applying different logic to something that requires simple comprehension of the word "name."

That is not the right thing (with the variables). Your logic is that the result is the same with any variable. x + y = z and m + n =/= z, proves you wrong. First understand your logic before using it..
Posted by ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46 8 years ago
ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46
1. Quite true, scales mean entirely different thing. Especially in this case. In this case, 100 is average. Below is below. Above is above. 178 maintains itself. My novel will mean quite a bit if published by a major publisher and mass produced, generating revenue. Stock trading is a means of financial success, just upholding all that was previously said (by me). Pioneering means nothing. Einstein is overrated by any and all extents. His research was pioneering, but quite obvious. His conjectures were completely obvious. Given his research, of course.

2. *I maintain that 2 is for now*

3.

4. I disagree. Humans would lack the ability to comprehend anything without words. Words are what allow humans to function.

5. You lie yet again. You do a terrible job in recovery, as well. You would lie to avoid telling the truth.

Your "z" and other "z" are not equal. Your "logic" is completely flawed by variables. We have different results. That is why your logic does not make sense. You claim that 4 letters mean the same thing. I disproved it. Therefore, you were incorrect. You have agreed with me.

(X-a) = C

(Y-b) = C

C=C

(M-d) = Q

(N-e) = Q

Q =/= Q

Ergo, logical fallacy.
Posted by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
1. Different scales mean different things. 178 could be in the average range, so it means nothing. I do not care about your stock trading or your novel. Neither of them mean anything. Einstein was quite impressive. Being a pioneer is a great achievement in itself. Einstein was a brilliant.

2 & 3 are for later.

4. The expressions triggers something in the brain that you identify in words. Humans would understand expression without words.

5. I do do a bad job of lying, but if you mistook that for lying, then you really cannot tell when I lie. That was the truth. Besides, why would I lie?

x + y = z but that does not mean m + n = z
x and y would be the words I used, m and n would be the words you used, and z is the result.
Your logic about logic does not work.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by enkaaladiyilboomi 8 years ago
enkaaladiyilboomi
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by jamielynn 8 years ago
jamielynn
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by intj22 8 years ago
intj22
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by cto09 8 years ago
cto09
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
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 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
crackofdawnkarththegeldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70