The Instigator
WempoSlemko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

It is less advantageous to have no friends rather than have backstabbing ones.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 52948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

WempoSlemko

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
Theunkown

Con

I accept. I will debate that it more advantageous to have no friends than to have traitors and backstabbers as friends.
Debate Round No. 1
WempoSlemko

Pro

My opponent added the word 'traitors' in. This wasn't the resolution.

If one has no friends, they not only lose out on experience on social interaction but they begin shutting off the opportunity to branch out and find valuable allies in times of need. If one has no allies at all, they are inevitably vulnerable so the social predators' whims. On the other hand, if one has backstabbing friends, it is very likely that they can use this nature to their advantage by pitting one against the other. Additionally, having such friends is good training in how to become one of them for later reference.

There are times in life where the only person you can rely on is yourself. Both the situations are examples of this. The difference is the mutual friends you will have via befriending backstabbers and the social power you can have once you learn their true nature.

There is no gain of having no friends, but there is very much gain in having friends that are not only training you in how to spot and outsmart other backstabbers but also valuable stepping stones to get in touch with mutual friends who may well be trustworthy despite the connecting friend's persona.
Theunkown

Con

There is obviously no gain in having no friends.

My opponent does mention that having backstabbing friends is beneficial so that the person will be able to outsmart any future backstabbers. It is a fair point however, I do contend that backstabbing friends could pretty much put your life in ruins temporarily or permanently.


For instance, Let's say a person (John) has a girlfriend and a backstabbing 'best friend' (Bob). Bob could convince the girlfriend to break up with John. John will feel be extremely emotionally distressed from breaking up, not to mention the additional pain from realising he just lost his 'best friend' Bob, considering John finds out about the betrayal which is the key factor of Pro's argument of being able to spot out future betrayers.
Alternatively, John can never find out about the betrayal to save him some depression, causing pro's argument about being able to outsmart betrayers to go away.

Of course, this is just one scenario. There are countless others but I think I made enough of a point.


Furthermore, even if having backstabbing friends does prepare you for outsmarting other backstabbing friends, it would make more sense to just have no friends and prevent the whole backstabbing thing in the first place.
In other words, Why fight a war which does not need to be fought?

I mean, nothing good can possibly come out of having backstabbing friends other than the experiance to deal with other backstabbing friends.

Let me put things in perspective by presenting both mine and pros arguments this way:

Let's say you have 2 kg of gold with you
A robber steals 1 kg of gold from you but now you can never be robbed of your other 1 kg of gold again. - This is pro's argument.
I suggest let no robber come close to you in the first place to take that gold, you still now retain your 2kgs of gold with NO losses.

Which sounds more reasonable and beneficial?

Debate Round No. 2
WempoSlemko

Pro

WempoSlemko forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

Theunkown forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WempoSlemko

Pro

WempoSlemko forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

I must apologize for forfeiting the previous round (despite the fact that my opponent forfeited two). I was travelling and I forgot all about the debate. Either way, this debate is over anyway. I think it is fair if round 3 is not taken into account on this debate since both of us forfeited it. As such, I encourage my opponent to counter my round 2 arguments in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
WempoSlemko

Pro

WempoSlemko forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

Alas, My opponent forfeited.

Once again, I apologize for forfeiting one round.
But, considering that my opponent forfeited thrice, Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
WempoSlemkoTheunkownTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins via forfeit (if from nothing else). Con presents compelling and practical examples while Pro seems only to define the two situations in a way that does not look at potential consequences, but rather exclusively focuses on the situations prima facie.