The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustinAMoffatt
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.

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 2 votes the winner is...
JustinAMoffatt
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,436 times Debate No: 56870
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

9spaceking

Pro

The resolution: It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.
Feared: something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension, something a person is afraid of [1]

Loved: held in deep affection; cherished [2]

You may only use the first round as acceptance.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
JustinAMoffatt

Con

Why not? Seems fun. :)

I hope for a great debate, my friend.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

1. The Mongols
The Mongols were great.


However, they would not have achieved so much had they used fear to prevent up-roaring from the other people. In fact, the wikipedia source [1] even states "The success of Mongol tactics hinged on fear". This shows the success of fear, and supports the resolution "it is better to be feared than loved". In addition, not only did the Mongols conquer many, many territories, (and be the "exception to everything") they also provided peace throughout the empire, a period called the Pax Mongolica. [2]
In conclusion the Mongols show that it is better to be feared than to be loved.

2. Fluttershy
Fluttershy is a great pony, and is mostly nice. However, even Fluttershy can be angered. One particular episode showed that she was forced to use fear and ignore her love, and it was for the better. [3] That episode is called It Ain't Easy Being Breezies, and within that episode, because these creatures named Breezies were getting harmed, Fluttershy had to take care of them. Of course, this was good, but they were from another world and their portal was closing. Yet, Fluttershy had loved them too much to let them go. At the end, in a critical moment, Fluttershy finally had to stand up and use fear to force the Breezies away.
FROM THE WIKI PAGE [3]:
Fluttershy's eye glow S4E16

Fluttershy realizing the kindest things are not always the most helpful.

Moreover, she even further adds to my resolution and scare away bees about to harm the leader of the Breezies, seabreeze. The wikia states "Before the bees attack Seabreeze, Fluttershy arrives and kindly asks the bees to leave him alone. When appealing to the bees fails, Fluttershy angrily demands that they leave. The bees finally receive the message and return to their hive." As demonstrated here, being loved didn't work. Fear worked better.
In conclusion Fluttershy has shown that being feared is better than being loved.

3. Rap Battles
Rap Battles show it is better to be feared than loved. In general, no one uses compliments within rap battles. In contrast, insults and swears are thrown by each of the competitors in order to sound tough and have the voters think they are better at rapping. A few examples are shown from sources 4-6. Even if you are normally loved the debaters will probably vote on skills, if the judges are unbiased enough. However, if you are, say, Juggle, and you have power over the site, instilling fear in everyone, some people just might vote for you even if you have worse skills, because you can do lots of unimaginable things to those people if you feel like it.

4. Draconian Laws
In the olden days, very very long ago, there was such a thing as Draconian Laws. They were very severe and full of punishments. However, they were actually very successful and there was very little crime in the whole country. [7] Why is this? Because people feared Draco's laws too much. They feared that, if they stole a loaf of bread, they would get whiplashed 20 times on the back. They feared that, if they even dared to riot or revolt, they would get chained and bound into the prison for 50 years. Draco's laws, although stretching the boundaries a little too far, still show that it is better to be feared than loved, since there was very little crime. This is similar to the Mongol's, who, I repeat, attacked rebellious cities/empires and obliterated them completely, preventing any uprising from occuring.

Onto you, con.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

Good to be back! :) I can't tell you how excited I am to be debating on here again. Thank you for this, 9spaceking.

First, I will respond to my opponent's arguments. Then I will add contentions of my own.

P1. The Mongols
Dismissing the fact that Wikipedia is not a reputable (nor reliable) source, my opponent cites the success of Mongolian wartime tactics as an example supporting his side. However, while fear definitely makes for far more effective warfare, does this really mean we should pursue fear over love?

The Mongolians were extremely skilled warriors, but were also heartless imperialists. The fact that they conquered such a huge land mass carries with it the somber reminder that many died by Mongolian steel. It is estimated that the Mongolians killed about 40-60 million people at a minimum.[1] The fear of that steel kept the people in line, sure. But within less than a century, the empire fractured.[2] No one held any allegiance to their Mongolian rulers. They did not love them.

So yes. Fear may have aided in the accomplishment of a historical feat. But is the fractured fate that the Mongolian empire soon suffered really something to be desired?

P2. Fluttershy
When asked privately about this point, my opponent stated that he believed this to show that, even in the fictional world, fear trumped love. However, there is are two problems.

..... it's fictional.

I once wrote a short story about a character with PTSD from a former armed conflict. In the end, said character only was able to overcome the fear and trauma of his past through his love for his wife. (True fictional story.)

Does that prove love conquers fear? Absolutely not! I thought it made for a great story, though.

In the same fashion, we can clearly see that the message MLP's creators wanted to convey was one of fear being a good tactic for gaining desired results, but those are simply the creators' views, not facts.

But that leads me to my second issue with this. Pro presumes that the ultimate goal is to achieve one's desires.

This shows us that, in his eyes (and the Mongols and Shutterfly's), fear is just a means to an end. No one is satisfied with simply being feared. They use fear to gain other things. But I will come back to this later.

P3. Rap Battles
I fail to see how this is a point for Pro, in spite of his insistence on the matter. Rap battles have little to nothing to do with fear, so far as I see. In the end, the winner is whoever was more loved by the audience for their performance. That's all I think I can say on the matter.

Except for this: Again, winning rap battles seems to be a petty accomplishment to value oneself upon (as much as I respect those who have the talent to win them).

P4. Draconian Laws
Yes, Draconian laws existed. They're the reason why, nowadays, we use the term "draconian" in a very negative light.

Regardless, this is probably the strongest point Pro makes. Draco's infamous laws did keep the people of Athens in line. But the fear that these laws provided were due to the threat of disproportionate and severe punishments. Such punishments cost Athens (and even the modern world) many great men. One example is Socrates. Socrates was the first great philosopher and opened the eyes of the world (and even humanity today) to things we had never previously considered. He also tutored great minds such as Plato (and indirectly, Aristotle). But he, and all his wisdom, were lost to us when Draconian law required he be put to death for being charged with petty crimes he didn't commit.

The end result: We lost one of the wisest men the world may ever know. Why? Fear.

So we see that fear brings us destruction. Fear can only be used for selfish gain.

But what about love?

This is where I'll be introducing my contentions.

C1. Being loved is an end, not a means
Being loved is its own prize. Society has demonstrated an innate desire to be loved that is lodged deep within the heart of humans across the globe. Whether it be in music, movies, games, or even your day-to-day life... being loved is a common goal amongst chracters both fictional and material.

Why? Because All You Need is Love.[3] Kidding! ;) But the point still stands. When we're loved, we feel happy.[4] With fear, one must try and get other things to be happy. So in the end, why would we value a tool over the finished project? With this in ming, we see that choosing fear over love would be akin to buying all the parts to your new PC when you could have the finished product for the same price. There's no point.

C2. But even as a means, love conquers fear
What does one do with being feared? They use it. We discussed this in my response to P2, I believe. Basically, being feared is a tool. Through it, we may be able to temporarily gain riches, power, or praise... but ultimately, we only possess that power so long as we can maintain fear.

Love, while fulfilling in its own right, is also a tool. We can use love, and the fact that others love us, to fulfill personal desires and wishes. We can also help others with it, something fear cannot be used for.

But the best part is... love, true love, is not contingent on what we can or can't do.

Love is patient, love is kind, etc. etc.[5][6] If love is conditional, it isn't love. So, by definition, to be loved is ot be loved unconditionally. This means that it isn't temporary, it is permanent... and can permanently benefit us as a tool. We don't need to use fear for personal gain when others hold our needs above theirs.

C3. Logic > Examples
My opponent has relied heavily on examples thus far into our debate. Now, if there's one thing being a debater has taught me... it's that logic is always more reliable than examples. Always.

Yes, my opponent could show that, in some cases, being feared benefitted someone. However, I've shown by logic that being loved is always preferrable because 1. Being loved is a goal, and makes us happy. 2. Being loved is a better tool for gain that being feared. Those cannot be denied and should be valued above any examples shown thus far or in the future.

Back to you, Pro.

[1] http://necrometrics.com...
[2] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...
[3]
[4] http://education-portal.com...
[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[6] http://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

REBUTTALS
1. The Mongols
Indeed, the empire did collapse, but keep in mind that the Mongols were really bad rulers. Their goal was pretty much just gold and loyalty. They even let the rulers keep their states and rule them as long as they paid gold to the Mongols. [1]

2. Fluttershy
No one is satisfied with simply being feared? I never said the ruler was cruel and greedy. He or she could simply be very good at enforcing rules and ruthlessly executing rebellious tribes, like the Mongols.

3. Rap Battles
Sorry, I'll have to drop this point since I can't come up with anything.

4. Draconian's Laws
How could we know Draco wasn't just jealous of Socrates' popularity? Nothing suggests Draco even remotely feared Socrates.

C1. Even if you're truly loved, that in no ways mean it lasts forever. You still have to keep the taxes good. You have to practically follow your citizens because they love you and believe you will do what they think "is right". On the other hand, with fear, the ruler is in control--although popularity might sway his or her opinion, he will generally rule with an iron fist and cannot be overcome with a simple rebellion. In other words, if you're loved, your citizens treat you like family but expect you to be pretty much perfect. The love doesn't last forever. You're lazy? Your citizens start booing and throwing rotten tomatoes. Your amendment on the death-penalty recieves very negative opinions? You'd better change it before your citizens start a riot. In fact, the truth is the importance is that your citizens love whatever you do and don't care. But that's just infatuation and hypnosis. You don't want to be torturing your poor citizens and still have them say "WE LOVE YOU!! KEEP ON DOING THIS!!"

C2.True love is very hard to do, especially with bad people. Bad people just want more and more money, more and more power, more and more property. [2] If they love you, they'd expect you to give them what they want. If you don't give them, then the citizens will be wondering "where did his second chance go?" and suspect your credibility. If you give him, then you have just let a bad guy won.

Logic>examples.
My rebuttals support this.

[1] http://en.wikibooks.org...
[2] http://villains.wikia.com...
JustinAMoffatt

Con

Thank you for your responses, Pro.

P1. The Mongols
The Mongols were pretty terrible rulers. Why? Because feared rulers can only do so much. Fear of the government causes rebellion and uprising. There is no trust. No loyalty. That is why represenative forms of government are so stable. We choose our government and we put in office those we "love" rather than those we "fear".

If you want to conquer powerless neighboring countries, then being feared is a plus. If you want to do practically anything else.... being loved is definitely the better option.

P2. Flutteryshy
Again, is this really a positive? Is it better to be a ruthless killer (be it an indiviual or a government)? That's all fear really advances, destruction. Love enables us to help those around us and be helped. It is mutually beneficial as well as being a benefit in its own right.

P3. Rap Battles
Concession acknowledged. No need to apologize. :) I've done it before, too. Sometimes a point has been lost. That's okay.

P4. Draco's Laws
Draco actually lived around 200 years before Socrates. The problem is, the laws Draco put in place, those same laws that thrived off of fear, cost Socrates his life. Fear killed a great man, and he wasn't the only one. We've seen fear of others get them destroyed.

For instance, other races. Misunderstanding and a fear of the unknown have caused those of other races to mistreat one another for no justifiably reason repeatedly throughout history. These people didn't want to be feared. They just wanted to be accepted. Fear does not automatically equal respect. Fear usually is accompanied by hatred.

C1. Being loved is an end, not a means
My opponent takes this from the perspective of a government. I meant this more on a personal level, but will ackbowledge it just the same.

Again, true love, by definition, is unconditional and infinite. Yes, maybe no people truly love their government in the real world, but debate is about hypotheticals anyways. If a government could either gain fear or love from its citizens, it should/would choose the latter.

C2. True Love
Yes, it's true that many don't love correctly. We misuse the word[1] (Since I don't have any sources thus far, I will link random song lyrics here). But if we don't take love by its true definition for purposes of the debate, then we can't have a debate. That'd be like having a debate on if "Bus emissions should be regulated" and raising the argument that some people refer to mini-vans as "buses". It wouldn't be good for the debate, and it doesn't make the van any more of a bus.

C3. Logic > Examples
I'll leave this up to the voters.

Conclusion
So far, the debate stands like this.

P1. The Mongols killed lots of people and got lots of gold because they were feared.
P2. Shutterfly, a fictional pony, got what she wanted out of fear.
P3. Conceded.
P4. Draco's laws, based on fear, caused the unjust execution of one of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known.

C1. Love is a reward, as well as a tool to gain other rewards. Fear is only a tool.
C2. Love is a preferrable tool over fear, due to it being infinite and unconditional.
C3. Logical statements that show love is preferrable to fear should be favored over examples of feared people temporarily prospering.


Thank you, and I look forward to your response, Pro.


Sources
[1] http://www.azlyrics.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

FINAL REBUTTALS AND CONCLUSION
1. The Mongols
Actually, the Mongols just didn't know how to rule because they had no expereince. Do you expect nomads to know how to take care of a country? [1] Of course not. All the Mongols knew was how to conquer and shut down rebellions. Nothing suggests that if the Mongols had been loved, no one would have rebelled. There's still the case of possible jealousy that can cause uprising.

2. Fluttershy
You do not have to be a ruthless killer. You could be very just and still have people scared that if they break a law, they go to jail for 10 years.

3. Draco's Laws
My opponent states "Misunderstanding and a fear of the unknown have caused those of other races to mistreat one another for no justifiably reason repeatedly throughout history." However, nothing suggests that misunderstanding plus love can be beneficial either. Some people might take it wrongly (romantic love, instead of general loving of people) and question which kind of love the ruler applies to the citizens, causing complications.

C1. But--what about the opposite, false love?? That would not really work out that well....

In this case, people could question the ruler's love, then find out that the ruler didn't love them....and be rebellious and bad-natured about it. As demonstrated in the particular example above, Anna truly loved Hans while the vice versa did not occur, and because of Hans' maliciousness, he used it against Anna and stabbed her in the back. Had Anna feared Hans, she never would have even interacted with him, and all of this is solved.

C2. True Love
Opponent has conceded....a little bit. Love can be only one sided! It is not in all cases that two people both mutually love each other! In this case, it is really bad. If both feared each other, at least no heart-breaking would have occured!!

And finally, to rebut your conclusion statements...
C1. Love is a reward while fear is only a tool. Fear can turn into a reward if you execute villains good enough and everybody wants you to be ruler since all crime is gone in the country. Love can turn into a tool as shown in Hans' example.
C2. Love preferrable. Uhhh....Fear is infinite and unconditional as well. XD
C3. I used examples to prove my logic correct.

Good debate.
Vote me!




JustinAMoffatt

Con

Thank you to Pro for his responses.

P1. The Mongols
What would experience have taught them? That they needed to be loved. Whether your a government or an individual, it is always better to be loved.

It doesn't follow that citizens who love their government enough would rebel. If the colonists had loved Great Britain, they wouldn't have started the American Revolutionary War. Were they scared of Great Britain? Most definitely. But they rebelled because they didn't love their government.

We see that, while fear makes for a good wartime tactic, it's detrimental to a government.

P2. Fluttershy
Yes, we discussed the effectiveness of fear in lawmaking in P4. Ultimately, it has lead to many deaths through unjust execution. Also, I would like to point out that we are no debating laws, so much as people and rulers/governments. As we've seen, it is far better for a government to be loved than feared.

P3. Rap Battles
Conceded in Round 3.

P4. Draco's Laws
..... Well it would be awkward to have to friend-zone your citizens, I admit. But ultimately, it's not very likely that the citizens of a nation would mistake their ruler's love for them for romantic love.

Plus... I'm a little confused because I believe we've been discussing this with the rulers receiving the love... not vice versa.

But again, the true definition of love, be it romantic or general, is unconditional. Either way, it is more beneficial to have others' love than their fear.

C1. Love is a reward
^ that was the point of C1. As you can see, Pro tried to raise a new contention in his "reply" to my point. It's, sadly, a little late for that. Regardless, I will respond as best I can anwyays.

It's hard to picture this, but love that is true would persist even when hurt. Have you ever forgiven someone? That's love. You decide to look past that person's offense to you because you care more about them than yourself.

Likewise, if the people love their government, then they will understand it is not perfect.

Also, the government benefits either way. We must remember that, according to Pro, the government is the one recieving the love. Even if the government mistreats its citizens, the citizens will still be loyal and helpful to the government. Is that wrong? Yes. But the government stands to gain no matter what. So, for the government, it is much better to be loved than feared. Correct?

C2. True Love
....... I'm a bit confused. The point of this contention is that love is unconditional. If the citizens love a government, or a person loves his friends, it's unconditional. That is all.

C3. Logic > Examples
Conceded by Pro.


Conclusion
While the most important contentions were my own, I believe that all contentions eventually flowed Con. There is no justifiable reason that one, be they an individual or government, would want to be feared rather than loved.

Thus, I would strongly urge a vote for Con.



Thanks for the debate, 9spaceking :) I hope you continue your career here on DDO.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
good point Raisor.
Posted by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
This was a straight-forward, across the board win for Con.

Con turned all of Pro's contentions, most notable the mongol and rap battle case. Con showed that mongol reliance on fear led to an unsustainable government while killing millions. The Draconian law example was turned, Con used it to show the high cost of fear tactics. Pro should have kept the focus on his original point, that the laws reduced crime, but instead Pro let the point get away from him while Con reiterated the death of Socrates.

Based on that Con's arguments are sort of superfluous; Pro's responses weren't very compelling and didn't generate much offense.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
RFD Pt.2

Pro demonstrating cases of fear being of more value than love, merely means fear is sometimes better, but not that we can form a generalization of fear being better than love. Pro only responds that his rebuttal answers this without showing how. Con says he"ll leave it up to the voters...Examples are beneficial to arguments but don"t usually form arguments in themselves.

Con brings up the good point that love is an end, whereas fear is just a means to an end. Love makes people more happy, whereas, fear is used to achieve desires such as happiness. Any person or government would rather be loved than feared according to Con. This ignores the examples Pro brought up, but I think the point is that most people and governments will try to achieve love if they can, even though sometimes fear is a better means to other ends.

I"ve ignored the dispute over semantics and other points, because ultimately, they weren"t important to my decision.
Posted by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
RFD Pt.1

Pro brings up the Mongols" success through fear. Con concedes that fear is effective for warfare, but says this doesn't mean fear should be sought over love. Fear is good for warfare but is detrimental to governing which can be seen in the fact that within less than a century the Mongol empire fell apart.

Fear produces the potential for rebellion and disloyalty. Pro says love still includes the possibility of jealousy which can cause an uprising. Overall, the disloyalty and discontentment caused by a government based on fear seems far more likely to cause uprisings, like the American Revolution which Con brought up.

Con also counters this point by bringing up the nature of representative governments that are based far more on love than fear. This example is better than Pro"s for the sole fact that current-day governments are much more relevant than ancient warring empires.

I agree with Con that Draconian laws is Pro"s best point. However, Pro essentially drops it by only responding to Con with a very shoddy and historically inconceivable question. Latter Pro brings up romantic love--which doesn't seem applicable--and reverses the government"s receiving love to their giving it which wasn't what this point was even about.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
actually, JK. this is meant to be a serious debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
this debate is only half-troll, if you think this is a troll debate.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 2 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Eh. Elo doesn't really matter. :P There are plenty of great debaters with low elo.

I've seen a few of your debates. I look forward to seeing what you've got. :)
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
wow another guy with over 3,000 elo
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
9spacekingJustinAMoffatt
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
9spacekingJustinAMoffatt
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments