The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is winning everything?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/4/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,555 times Debate No: 89183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Competition isn"t just about winning and proving yourself to be the best. Competition should prepare us for life's struggles. Whether we win or lose, we should walk away with experience necessary to excel in life ahead.


First, let me begin by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate. I'm looking forward to it.

Next, I'll provide some definitions... (

Winning: the act of one that wins
Victory: success in defeating an opponent or enemy
Everything: all that exists or all that is important

Now, let me continue by stating what I will be arguing: winning is essential (or "everything" as the title of this debate state it) because without winners, there are no losers; if individuals, nations, or groups were not driven by the thought of winning, the would lack motivation; and finally, winning is "everything" because victory is how change occurs.

Without winners, there are no losers. This can best be compared to "if there is no good, there is no evil". The state of victory simply cannot exist without a state of defeat. The two are opposites, and if one exists, so does the other. Their existence is dependent on that of their opposite.

Winning creates motivation. For this, I invite you to glance at any sports team. What is their ultimate goal? Victory. Winning. They know that they want to win, and that thought drives them. It motivates them to work harder and practice greater to achieve victory.

Victory creates change. The American Revolution. The Civil War. The Women's Suffrage Movement. These are all examples of how victory is directly involved in the establishment of change. Looking at a war, the winning side is ultimately the side that gets to decide their ideals. When the U.S. won the American Revolution, they were able to decide what they wanted to do with their newfound independence. They went from an abused colony of England to an independent, fortified nation. That is change, and it wouldn't have occurred without the victory - without the U.S. "winning" - the Revolution.

Thanks again, and I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1


First, I thank you for accepting this challenge. Now to business.

I quote you " winning is essential because without winners, there are no losers; if individuals, nations, or groups were not driven by the thought of winning, the would lack motivation" And I agree fully. But you and many others associate winning with success.

This is somewhat true. If you win all the time, over and over, you build confidence. But winning is not what real life is. It's should not be just a series of wins, but a series of lessons from which we emerge stronger. Even players who win most of the time may lose the pleasure of participating because of the pressure they place on themselves to win over and over.

But people also say that if you don't win you can't succeed and that becoming a winner is essential to being a human. I disagree with that. Winning is an outcome. However, when people become obsessed with outcomes, they can lose sight of the journey, lose sight of who they are and how they got there, lose appreciation for the value of people who don't win.
There is also one fact that most people do not realize. Even those who win have most likely lost many times before. For example, Albert Einstein.
Einstein did not speak until he was four and did not read until he was seven, causing his teachers and parents to think he was mentally handicapped, slow and anti-social. Eventually, he was expelled (yes, expelled) from school and was refused admittance to the Zurich Polytechnic School. But he caught on quickly in the end, winning the Nobel Prize and changing the face of modern physics.
The point is that when people feel like they're failing at something, they must remember that sometimes failure is the first step to success.


Thank you for your response.

I'd just like to clarify that the topic of this debate is "Is winning everything", rather than "is success everything" or "is victory everything". I wanted to avoid confusion because the three can easily become mixed up. "Winning" is an outcome of an event, whereas "success" is defined by the individual and "victory" refers to the objective, positive, outcome of an event to an individual. Success is not objective as is victory. Now that that's cleared up...

I'll begin my argument with my rebuttals to your argument.

R1: "Winning is not what real life is". Life is a series of victories, championships, and defeat. Winning is not directly related to success. "Winning" - similar to "victory" - is an outcome. "Winning" refers to the state of mind of a winner. A "winner" is one who is victorious. "Success" is defined in the individual's own eye. The most common misconception is that success is based on how much money or material objects you possess. And for some, this is the definition of success they provide. For others, they judge success on how much of a difference they make in peoples' lives, how they achieve a goal, or how well they quit a habit (

R2: "When people become obsessed with outcomes, they can lose sight of the journey...". Human life is a series of outcomes. Everything you do is an action and it has an outcome. The term "outcome" is not just something that people throw around in math or science, and it doesn't just refer to heads or tails. For example, getting up at 6:10 instead of 6:00 because you wanted to sleep later is an action; the outcome of the action may be that you miss the train to work. I disagree with your statement that people "can lose sight of the journey...who they are and how they got there...value of people who don't win" because the outcome of an action or event does not affect morals. Individuals are stubborn when it comes to their values, and will not typically change their belief system or forget their upbringing simply because they missed the train.

I'll end my argument with a summary of the debate thus far.

In the topic "Is winning everything?", Con argues that winning is not everything because people cannot become obsessed with the outcomes of their actions lest they forget what's really important in life. I, being Pro, on the other hand, argue that winning is all that is pertinent because it creates change, motivation, and losers. I argue that the definition of success can be different to each individual; that victory is an outcome, while winning is a state of mind; that life is a series of victory, defeat, actions, and outcomes.
Debate Round No. 2


Pyrefox forfeited this round.


Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I will avoid presenting new information or rebuttals.

Thanks to my opponent, the viewers, voters, staff, and everyone else who was involved in this debate. I hope the viewers have been informed on this topic.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Pyrefox 2 years ago
I wish the voting period wasn't so long...
Posted by lavaWhiskers 2 years ago
Don't worry... I wasn't going to continue my argument into the third round anyway.
Posted by Pyrefox 2 years ago
Sorry, i didn't have time to post my 3rd round argument as I was out of town. I apologise lavawhiskers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.