The Instigator
lucyalice1989
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AlijahNelson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Independance vs Dependance

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: 5/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,601 times Debate No: 16629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

lucyalice1989

Pro

I believe in evolution and as years pass we become either independant or dependant, I also believe that people must become independant to be self actualized.

Pretty self explanatory (just prove otherwise).

Three rounds, arguments, quotes and contentions.
AlijahNelson

Con

Everyone depends on something, I can define dependence in many ways. Such as help, aid, support etc. Most common things Americans depend on is jobs, welfare to feed their children, a car to get around, and so on.......Going all the way back to revolutionary war(independence). The war was fought because everyone wanted freedom, personal rights and much more, the people where tired of British which was about 3500 miles away giving them orders or laws on what to do and what not. sure they won, but still today don't we still have laws? Everyone depends on something and always will.
Debate Round No. 1
lucyalice1989

Pro

Yeah we may aswell forfeit as it is not really a debate topic, i'm from NZ and have little knowledge on debate rules. This is more a "theory" then a debate. It invloves relating animals to people and describing the rule of dependance e.g..

-A kitten is dependant on it's mother for three months and then can stray quite easily.
-The more intelligent a animal is the more dependant it seems to be for a longer period of time.
-Humans do not have a set time of staying dependant.. whereas animals are periodical except for a "duck" whom seems to have one soulmate.

I am trying to link this theory to evolution. Again I am sorry for posting a debate on such topic, I will properly research the "rules"
AlijahNelson

Con

A brief definition of philosophy is: A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it. therefore theories can be used to prove your point. I scanned through the topic and didn't read into it very much. And I don't study nature's. sorry if this debate was a waste of you time. Just made the debate team at my school and a friend recommended this page. And I was just looking for a quick debate.
Debate Round No. 2
lucyalice1989

Pro

Thats fine, think it's my fault I did not outline the argument clearly I've obviously confused alot of people. I don't know how to forfeit!!.. ah well, thanks for being so understanding :)
AlijahNelson

Con

AlijahNelson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlijahNelson 4 years ago
AlijahNelson
Why does it says I forfetited this round when she cleary says she forfeited
Posted by lucyalice1989 5 years ago
lucyalice1989
SORRY GUYS!!!!!! this was more a theory then a debate, please understand I am from NZ and know little debate rules as "debates" are non existent here, sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro's opening statement is: "I believe in evolution and as years pass we become either independant or dependant, I also believe that people must become independant to be self actualized."

"Evolution" probably means individuals evolve in their thinking to become independent or dependent. Pro then asserts that people must become independent to be self actualized. I don't know what Pro means by self actualized, but it seems to be a good thing. It seems to mean "independent." Therefore Pro is affirming the independent path rather than the dependent path.

If my interpretation is correct, then it would be legitimate to arge against the premise that there are two distinct paths and that one must be chosen over the other.

Be nice if Pro resolved the meaning. The challnge can be edited before it is accepted.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Logc_on_rails, When you click on "Accept" you are not really accepting. It comes back with the character limit, the number of rounds, and time to respond. At that point you can accept or decline for real.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 5 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
I think from the evolution comment she made this is a question of whether or not humanity becomes more independent or dependent on one another as we evolve. Some animals try to become self sufficient, humanity on the the other hand, has grown from its ability to cooperate with other members of the species and form societies which allow its members to focus on other aspects of life than pure survival.
Posted by bigpoppajustice 5 years ago
bigpoppajustice
I think by self actualization you meant hipster.
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
Also, is there any way (for any debate) to determine the time allowed for arguments in each round besides accepting? Ie. Is it a 72 hour period, a 2 hour period or what? How can one tell?

If there's a reasonable time limit, I'll probably take this.
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 5 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
"Pretty self explanatory (just prove otherwise)."

Logic I am sure you can do what you suggested... prove both to be untrue.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
lolwut?
Posted by Logic_on_rails 5 years ago
Logic_on_rails
'Pretty self explanatory' - no. '... as years pass we become dependent or independent' - is that what you wish us to argue? Please answer questions from the comments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.