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

Likability Verses Capability

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: 11/26/2016 Category: People
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 231 times Debate No: 97375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This debate is whether success relies more on an individual's heart or brain. I can tell you why kind people have a better chance at success (in workplaces) than skilled people, and you can tell me why they don't.

It doesn't matter how well you can work for people, if you don't know how to work with people.

I'm a lifelong Christina Aguilera fan, and although Xtina is more capable than Britney Spears, [1] she's not as likable, and she's not as popular. [2]

[1] (Artistry/Voice)
[2] (Introduction)

Make the best debater win.


Thank you very much for this opportunity to debate. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence or information based on reason and logic.

I am truly sorry to point this out, but you didn't word your argument correctly. You didn't limit the number of workplaces, which implies that you are only successful if you are kind in all workplaces. If you said "(in some workplaces)" then I would not disagree with you.

CEOs of companies are not kind. I suppose that could be biased, but considering that most of them are sociopaths(that's a provable concept which I hope you can concede to), that would indicate they would not be under your definition of being kind. I can say that because of your implication that Brittany is not kind.

I will say that people with kindness(whatever your definition is fine) CAN be more successful in SOME workplaces using your argument. Success is a subjective term as well. How do you define it? Success can range from financial superiority all the way to moral superiority(not mutually exclusive). All what I am saying in regards to superiority is "success" implies you got better at something. Superiority implies you are better than something or someone. If you got better at something, that implies that you are better than something. I'm a very literal man. It's the only way I can be moral.

Good luck to you, and may I say I'm very happy that you choose to look at the glass half full. I am beginning my journey in this world and I am an advocate that kindness can lead to being far stronger and more successful than greed, apathy, and selfishness. My only advice if I may; it's not always about if the glass is half full or half empty, sometimes it's about what the glass is half full of or what is the other half lacking. I find that life can be fulfilling with this perspective. If you see more, then you can know more. If you can know more, then you can feel more. If you can feel more, then you can empathize more. If you can empathize more, then you will know of a power that not even the most educated people in the world can overcome. And I finally did prove that(logically of course, no this isn't it, this is still just conception).
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I would like to thank my opponent, in return, for accepting my debate challenge, as well as correcting me on what he thought to be errors.

I appreciate you reminding me of my lack of clarity, for it is something I forget and need to be caution of.

As much as I appreciate the clarity, rather than opposing my argument, like an opponent is intended to do, I feel like you were essentially just clarifying my argument and presenting it as if it were your own.

I want you to disagree with me, but you're disagreeing with someone I'm not and didn't even present myself to be. You're arguing with statements I didn't state, for one, and secondly, you're misinterpreting statements with little to no room for misinterpretation by misreading them altogether.

I don't think this was intentional, so if I may bring this to your attention, everyone can return to their lane, and we can have the amazing race we were meant to have.

I want you to know I did not insinuate that either Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera weren't kind but that Britney is (statistically) more likable and is more popular because of that. I would never classify someone as "not kind," let alone Britney Spears, who you, if you read back, will see that I actually was using as an example of someone who's very kind, as oppose to someone who is not kind, like I was needlessly accused of.

The question I posed wasn't which subject has a chance at success but which subject has more of a chance, meaning which ability is more likely to succeed in workplaces, and I didn't say some workplaces because I meant which subject has more of a chance in any workplace. My argument was specifically a generation, and the debate is whether the generation is accurate or not, with my argument claiming so. Considering I never stated that one can only be successful through kindness but that they have a better chance at success, that would be accusation number two.

We're defining kindness as likable, like it was stated in the title, and we're defining success as the dictionary would define it, which would be as "the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted." [1]

If I were to, say, invite you to a restaurant that requires you to bring your own silverware, but you only have room in your tote bag for one utensil, you'd probably pack a fork, because a fork has a better chance at being successful at any given restaurant, just as I believe likability has a better chance at being successful (than capability) in any given workplace, because, just as forks are more reliant upon for dinning than spoons or knives, likability is more reliant upon for contribution than capability, because, regardless of how incredibly well you can do something for people, if you can only do it with a poor attitude, most people wouldn't want you to do it for them at all, which is how bad service results in no service.

I can't say I was expecting to use round two to elaborate on what was intended to be concise in round one, but that's why we have round three. I look forward to debating the context of my argument, this time, more than the delivery of it.

Thank you in advance.

Good luck!



It's a well-put retort, however, I am by far the worst opponent you can possibly have. I have the ability to truly look through objectivity which I will prove in a source. I am one of the smartest people alive because of it. Now as you are reading this, I can imagine(not saying) you're thinking what an arrogant jerk I am. First, I'm not arrogant, I am confident. I am only arrogant if I am proven wrong. I do have an accurate estimation of my abilities. Secondly, I am only a jerk because I need practice pointing out the bias in humanity(this is actually the first(relatively speaking) time in my life that I am now debating). Please know that in no way shape or form do I feel that I am not equal to you. We are both human. We do have a right to our opinion, but that does not mean our opinion can't be wrong. When you create an argument, you are implying you are right, thus implying that your opponent is wrong. But even if your opinion is right or wrong, that doesn't mean we have other similarities or differences. I have no intention whatsoever degrading as a fellow human.

I look at every word I speak through an objective lens. I no longer think I am right. I know I am right(my opinion will always be based on math). If I am right, and you disagree, then I say you are wrong. If you agree, then from my perspective, you are right. This does not imply, however, that I know everything. I can be mistaken about something because I was unaware of information or evidence that would have lead to a different conclusion. Despite my confidence, I am still human, and I will never have omniscience. Thus to borrow words from Socrates because this is how he viewed himself (he just didn't have the proof that I do), I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. Reason and Logic are always objective. It is our egos that distort reality making it subjective.

>>>>I can tell you why "kind people" have a better chance at success (in workplaces) than skilled people, and you can tell me why they don't.
If there are "kind people" then wouldn't it imply that there are "not kind" people? You have created a positive term, thus a negative term must exist, or you just become a hypocrite. You cannot say that there are kind people without implying that there are mean people (I really don't like saying "not kind", I'm just using an antonym of "kind" to represent the negative. Please understand anytime I use the word "mean", it is not judgment; I am using it as a negative term in relation to the word "kind"). Everyone this uses hyperbole in debates. Hyperbole causes you to be subjective. Please understand I know what you are trying to say. However, not only are you hyperbolic, now you have made a false conclusion based on that bias which I will address.

I will have to correct to myself now, I didn't read your argument correctly (I am still working on interpreting arguments accurately, but sometimes I can mix up the constants. My math isn't wrong, but if I mix up the constants ex. Xtina and Britney, I can still come to being false.) I referred in my first argument that you were implying Britney is mean and Xtina is kind when you actually were implying the other way around. That being said, I am correcting it now. My logic is still right. It's right because it's essentially math(which explains the little room for interpretation). Math is objective. To be objective yourself, you treat everything like math.

>>>>I want you to know I did not insinuate that either Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera weren't kind but that Britney is (statistically) more likable and is more popular because of that.

So you are not calling Britney kind, you're just arguing that she is more successful because she is kind. I don't understand, how can you argue that "kind people" has a better chance at success in the workplace without first determining they are kind? Wouldn't they just be "people" then?

>>>>Considering I never stated that one can only be successful through kindness but that they have a better chance at success, that would be accusation number two.
I do concede to this point. What happened is pretty much exactly what my other mistake was. I thought you said 3 when you said 4 and it changed the solution. Better chance at success does not mean only successful. Yes, I was mistaken with that as well. (BTW this is exactly why I'm debating you, to iron out these wrinkles.)
>>>>We're defining kindness as likable, like it was stated in the title, and we're defining success as the dictionary would define it, which would be as "the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted."
Kindness does not necessarily lead to likeability. You would be right to say it has better a chance of likeability. I distinguish those two the same way you distinguished between "only successful" and "better chance of success". I did give the reason why "success" is a subjective term, but you didn't understand what I was saying. What plan, desire, or attempt are you trying to achieve in any one workplace? It could be money, fame, popularity, morality or any other motivation or a combination of them. Since each person has to decide for hi/herself, success is always subjective. My success is based on how efficiently I can follow my moral code. Another person's success could be based how much money he/she makes or has.
>>>>The question I posed wasn't which subject has a chance at success but which subject has more of a chance, meaning which ability is more likely to succeed in workplaces, and I didn't say some workplaces because I meant which subject has more of a chance in any workplace.
Even if you clean up your argument to say "People have a better chance of success in any workplace if they are more likable", I still disagree. That can be true in "most" workplaces if you want to say that, but still not all workplaces. I'll use your metaphor to explain what I mean.
"A restaurant" does not compare to to "any workplace". For your metaphor to be accurate, it must be "any restaurant" because "any workplace" conveys the argument to "every workplace in existence". So what if the restaurant you're going to only serves ice cream and soup? Knowing this do you think that a fork is the best tool? Wouldn't you change your behavior to try to be successful in the specific workplace you chose to work at? My argument with the CEO is that you don't have to be likable to get ahead in that workplace. CEO are sociopaths. I'm sure there are a lot of workplaces where people hate their boss. Their boss got there by being cold and calculable. I do imply that being the boss can be a form of success.
The source is my proof of my intelligence. This isn't relative to this argument so don't bother if don't care how smart I am. I only said that for my explanation of why I'm doing this. I know what you are trying to say with your argument. I'm sorry because I do agree with you if you're actually saying, "People have a better chance of success in most workplaces if they are more likable." I do say that because most people aren't sociopaths. Since that is true, I say most people can respond better to kindness and compassion which I would say most likely brings more respect and appreciation which in my opinion does mostly lead to being more successful in regards to heart. I will never judge someone for how much money they have, but I do judge the reason why someone has money. If you screwed over someone to get it, then I say your wrong. My source can bring a little light to why I judge that way. Thank you very much for this wonderful opportunity to debate with you. "As iron sharpens iron, so one sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17 Oh this paragraph is mostly my bias, so feel free critique in any way deem necessary or otherwise. I mean that, you can be honest with me.
Debate Round No. 2


I don't think you're arrogant; I think you're confident, but I like confident people. You're a very knowledgeable person, and you want to know everything there is to know, and that's not a problem; the problem is, you want to know things you aren't eligible of knowing. You're so smart that you just assume you're right, and when you assume, sometimes, you assume wrong. That's just the way the game of assumption works, which is why you shouldn't play it when you don't have to, because then you put yourself at risk of losing when you don't have to, and it doesn't have to be because you didn't play smart but because you didn't get lucky. Your love for a conclusion evokes you to jump to conclusions, but not so fast; there's a clock, but it has time on it.

However, assumptions allow one to question one's self, and since you like to "iron out the wrinkles," as you metaphorically put it, you shouldn't mind me joining you in your game and making some assumptions of my own.

I may be the best opponent you've ever had, because we all have our pros in life, and just as you appear to be very introspective, I'm extrospective. You have, let's say, great vision, because you can see out of your eyes miraculously well, but how well can you see out of another's eyes? You've stated you weren't understanding me, and although I may not agree with all of the things you were saying, I understood them. We could've reversed sides, and I could've defended your side of the argument just as well as I had my own. I can convince people of things I don't even believe, myself, simply because I understand them and how to explain them.

It's my understanding that you may be a tad fixated on logic, which, ironically, isn't very logical. You strike me as the kind of person who would tell me I can't live without breathing, and I'm the kind of person who would hold my breath while remaining alive, and therefore, proving you wrong. You know you're right? Did you know both of us could be right? You think you're a ten because you put five and five together, but I can put four and six together and be just as much of a ten as you.

You think I'm wrong? You think I'm not being logical? You think there's no logic to what I'm saying to you? You think I can't make as much logic out of it as I want to? I could tell you that grass is red and make logic out of it, because I'm extrospective, and I can see through another's eyes. The grass could very well be red through someone else's eyes, in which perceive green as red. [1] If you've ever watched Film Theory, you would understand that, in a world where anything is possible, you can make logic out of anything.

Perhaps it is only you who has made a false conclusion in saying I did. Saying one is kind means one has brought one's self to be kind in some way and at some point, while saying the exact opposite, that you feel must exist, would be to say the person has not brought their self to be kind in any way nor at any point, which would be an estimate no one is eligible to make about another person, being that no one has observed the entirety of anyone's life but their own, and even having observed their own life, that doesn't mean they can recollect the entirety of it, making one unable to even calculate their own acts of kindness, let alone someone else's.

I would say Britney Spears is kind, if she is who she presents herself to be, because, although never having the chance to meet her, I, as well as many others, have had the privilege to observe both her and her kindness, to a certain degree, which would be through the media. It's true she may very well not be what she portrays herself as, but neither may anyone else, and instead of accusing every person I see of being a con artist, I'm going to give some people the benefit of the doubt.

Saying I classified Britney as kind and Christina as mean is more correct but is still incorrect. I estimate Britney as kinder, but that doesn't mean I estimate Christina as mean. Christina can still be kind without being as kind as Britney.

I agree that I could've said kindness has a better chance at being likable, but that would've been beyond the point, because the point wasn't whether kindness or capability has a better chance at being likable but whether likability or capability has a better chance at success, and kindness was only used as an example of likability for clarification. What's the point of going beyond the point (other than procrastinating the point)? Most of the time, it's a positive ability, to be able to see below the surface, it is, but sometimes, when you go beyond the point, you take away from the point, and you never get to the point.

It's hard to dispute kindness relating to likability when it's used as a synonym for it in the dictionary. [2] You can be as opinionative as you want, but I'm being as factual as I can to avoid misconceptions. If people like kindness, then kind people would be likable, making one's ability to be kind one's likability. You can argue that some people don't like kindness and that everyone has their own definition of what's likable, but considering we don't know each other's personalized definitions of everything, it'd be smart to go by definitions we should both know, which would be the ones defined by a common dictionary.

I could argue that "any" workplace doesn't necessarily mean "every" workplace. "Every" means all, while "any" means at least one. "Is there every flavor left?" is equivalent to "Are there all of the flavors left?", while "Is there any flavor left?" is equivalent to "Is there at least one flavor left?", meaning my statement could be interpreted as "Kindness has a better chance at success in at least one workplace.", making your misinterpretation of it not my mistake but yours.

However, I won't argue. I will agree that I should have said "some" or even "most." Above was just an example of how one can make logic out of anything to make anything add up in one's favor. I won't make that mistake again, but I don't regret making it this time, because it made for a great debate that you may not have taken part in otherwise, considering you agreed with me, apart from that.

To be honest, I guess I didn't specify what workplaces because I wasn't referring to any workplace in particular. I don't want to say I meant all, because there's an exception for everything, but I meant all minus the exceptions. I said "success," for lack of a better term, but I think what I meant was "survival." I think likability/kindness has a better chance at survival than capability/talent, because, even if you're not capable, if you're likable, people will like you, and people will want to help you, because they'll want to see you succeed and survive, while, even if you're capable, one person alone is only capable of so much, and if people don't like you, they won't want to help you, because they won't want to see you succeed nor survive. Likability can lead to capability, while vice versa can't be said as easily.

I can't tell you how many times I've told people this, that they can potentially live off of kindness, because kindness has the potential to get you a free drink, free meal, free ride, even free hospitality, or whatever you need, and even whatever you want. Kindness doesn't only apply to softening strangers, if you're the suspicious type, but can apply to softening friends and family. The kinder you are to the world, the kinder it's more likely to be to you. Not to say that talent and skills aren't of value, because entertainment is worth a lot, but nothing is worth more than companionship. I really do believe that most people believe that.

How can I ever thank you for this great debate? I can't thank you enough. I hope you've learned from me as much as I've learned from you. Good luck! Make the best debater win.



First, I am having a lot of fun with this debate. I think that you have to be one of the coolest people in I've ever met. I have a condition that you might not be accustomed to, but because of your bravery and kindness, I wish to share who I truly am. Now it's the time to see if you can walk into my shoes. Thank you for this, you truly are extraordinary.

You did not run away from the coldness that I bring, instead you tried to warm it with your heart. I wish you know that my heart is never cold, but only my mind. So how long can you hold your breath? Is it not for as long as you need to? So then, how long can you hold your persistence? How long should I stand my ground?

Logic is absolute, it is never wrong, only those who interpret may be mistaken. Can beauty not be logical? Do we not function as many parts in a machine? How many pedals on a flower can ever feel the light? Cannot logic give these answers?

If a blind man told you were beautiful, would you say, "How do you know what beautiful is? You cannot see any colors."
Do you think you could see his heart with all the colors you could see?

If you act upon what you know and you don't know, then how could you ever do wrong? Your intent is as plain as eggshell white, so who am I to tell you to change?

I shall digress for once I could see and now I am blind. Let your beauty shine through for I no longer need to stand. Lastly, I am but two sides of the same coin. I'm so happy that I was able to express myself the way that I've always wanted. Thank you for this experience.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cloebowie 3 months ago
I saw your age on your profile, but I would've guessed you were much older.

Forty-five, maybe.
Posted by Sidex 4 months ago
I'm a little curious, how old do you think I am?
No votes have been placed for this debate.