The Instigator
ManofFewWords
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MasterDebated
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is objectively better to be a bully's sidekick than the bully himself/herself.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 52855
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ManofFewWords

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
MasterDebated

Con

I accept.

Objectively means: "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings"
Debate Round No. 1
ManofFewWords

Pro

DISCLAIMER: For those who have been bullied, this debate may aggravate emotional scars and I therefore advise anyone who is currently suffering from the victimisation of bullying to stop reading this immediately so as to avoid any emotional damage/trauma as this debate is not intended to condone bullying nor justify the actions of the bully nor their sidekicks. This is simply a debate over whether or not it is objectively superior to be the sidekick or the bully himself/herself given no other option, such as being the hero. Thus, in real life application of this debate I do not advise anyone to take either role.

When taking on an objective viewpoint, one is left to wonder what there is to rely on as a system of judgement. Does it really, objectively matter, if you rape, torture and taunt an individual for 30 years or so keeping them locked in your basement? Not really. There's 7 billion other relatively free individuals who go about their lives happily ignoring the suffering of that individual and the world is really not all that affected by this enslavement because, in the long run, it's doomed to end regardless of any feasible human action. The same can be applied to bullying of any nature.

What is objectively verifiable, however, is whether making someone suffer for years is objectively superior or inferior, via moral and strategic reasoning. It is without further ado that I shall present to you why it is objectively better, from a moral and strategic standpoint to be a bully's sidekick rather than the bully himself/herself.

I shall open with the moral argument. This revolves around both accountability as well as the capability for one to do good of some kind. A bully's sidekick is helping them not only escape the trap of loneliness but to both assist them do the dirty work as well as be their number one fan. It is a very fundamentally selfless way of life to dedicate one's entire effort to helping one achieve their dreams whilst taking virtually no credit themselves. When the bully doubts himself/herself, the sidekick is there to nurture their emotional needs and comfort them, when the bully needs to beat the guy up but doesn't wish to get their hands dirty or needs someone to begin cheering them on in order to alter the crowd's view to skew in their favour, the sidekick is there to cheer them on (rather than jeer them on, like the rest of the crowd is likely to do). The sidekick is willing to feel their pain and share their highs and lows, whereas the rest of the crowd doesn't care of the victim or the bully wins, they just want to see a fight, the sidekick is truly devoting their entirety to the well-being and success of this other individual than themselves. Thus, it is fundamentally 'good' to be a sidekick to a bully whilst the bully themselves is entirely selfless in the objective sense of the term.

On a separate note, it is strategically better for one to be the bully's sidekick due to both accountability, social prowess and flexibility of alignment. Accountability is the simplest concept to understand, any smart sidekick has friends other than just the bully and thus has far more back-up in case all goes to hell and the bully is exposed for what they truly are. The ability to use excuse such as "he forced me to do it or he/she'd bully me." or "I was just trying to be a good friend to him/her while they were going through a tough time... I never condoned their behaviour, that was all their own doing." are severely dangerous in two independent ways. the first excuse helps the victim feel a 'shared experience' tactic of befriending the victim and now using their sidekick talents, which they're experienced at, at sucking up to the victim in much the same way they did the bully and thus overthrowing the bully whilst maintaining full integrity as well as being the new best friend of the guy who will be a martyr to a great cause of 'anti-bullying' which is really just a facade for the sidekick to mask their escape of accountability. The second quote is simply a strategic way to appeal to authority to feel sympathy for the sidekick and feel understanding towards them.

The next strategic advantage is social prowess. Bullies are inherently intimidating in their nature and are psychologically prone to intimidate others[1] whilst sidekicks have no such traits and are often very compassionate but just happened to focus it on the wrong kind of person. Thus, sidekicks are inherently prone to give off an aura of care and open-mindedness, especially when seen side by side with the 'alpha' male, or female, that is the bully. People fearing the bully will often fear facing this beat up front and will oftentimes seek the sidekick for advise and assistance in dealing with the bully. They will also be aware that the sidekick is very often the eyes and ears of the bully, adept at being the first of the social circle at gaining both personal secrets as well as community-wide rumours. The sidekick is capable of being the common man whilst being terrifying all at once, merely depending on the situation that their bully companion finds themselves. While the bully is not on the hunt, the sidekick is very amiable and socially active (how else are they going to compete with others to be the bully's choice of sidekick?) they take his/her beatings, his/her taunts and attend to his/her narcissistic and sociopathic personality type[2][3] whilst not succumbing to this way of thinking themselves. The sidekick is the closest to the dangerous people and yet not seen as a threat the subordinates of the social food chain. They are neither the predator nor a scavenger, they are the slave to the predator and get cared for like a child. The lion kills to protect, as well as nurture their young much in the same way that the bully will come down harsh as possible to anyone that the sidekick says is criticising them. All the sidekick has to do is tell the bully that someone they don't like is criticising the bully or themselves and within hours that person will wish they were never born, so to say, whilst the sidekick isn't seen as any direct part of the abuse whatsoever, merely a good friend to a maniac.

Now we move onto the final aspect of the strategic advantage of being the bully's sidekick as opposed to the bully him/herself. The flexibility of alignment is perhaps the least obvious, and hence most subtle advantage to being the sidekick yet is by no means the least significant. A sidekick has no enemies. They are an enemy's ally from the perspective of the victim and often will be the cause of pain to victims whilst in the victim's memory they are only picturing the face and voice of their tormentor, not the one doing his dirty work. If your arms are being held back by two guys whilst some guy beats you senseless, you aren't going to remember as much of the ones holding your arms. If you see one sly cow sneering at you, throwing insults, you aren't going to care who is laughing, you are only going to remember the background laughs. Therefore, if it so happens that the victim gains some social advantage over the bully, the sidekick can begin planning how to work their way up the new food chain, with the former victim at the top of it, whilst the bully is left to suffer under the wrath of his/her scorned ex-victim.

In conclusion, it is morally and strategically better to be the bully's sidekick rather than the bully himself/herself.
Sources
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[3] http://www.beat-the-bully-book.com...
MasterDebated

Con

MasterDebated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ManofFewWords

Pro

ManofFewWords forfeited this round.
MasterDebated

Con

MasterDebated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ManofFewWords

Pro

ManofFewWords forfeited this round.
MasterDebated

Con

MasterDebated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ManofFewWords

Pro

ManofFewWords forfeited this round.
MasterDebated

Con

MasterDebated forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by L.D 3 years ago
L.D
This is easy, I agree. The only angle I can take the con argument from is morality. But then again, morality is a concept that is easily refuted as universal, but rather individualistic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.