The Instigator
HAtatrah
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BillBonJovi
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Loyalty

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,203 times Debate No: 15780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

HAtatrah

Pro

Being truly loyal to something or someone is unconditional. In other words, a person with
true loyalty will remain committed to that something or someone no matter what happens.
BillBonJovi

Con

I thank Pro for making this debate, and now onto the debate...

Now in Pro's Round 1 Pro said "Being truly loyal to something or someone is unconditional" and the key word in that sentence was "unconditional" so it appears that this debate is a debate about whether true loyalty is unconditional or not. So I will argue in this debate that being truly loyal is in fact conditional.

Using thefreedictionary.com I looked up the meaning of the word "unconditional" and the explanation that I found said to be:

"Without conditions or limitations" [1]

So basically Pro is saying that someone who is truly loyal does not intent to gain anything from the person they choose to be loyal to.

The ultimate question to this is WHY would they want to be like that?

Obviously the So called true-loyalist is looking out for the other person's well being in the end, and gaining someone's well being is a condition for loyalty. And the person's well being may not turn out to be the way the so called true-loyalist desires it to be.

Therefore if so called true-loyalist who seeks the well being cannot get that well being then the so called true-loyalist will eventually gain a disliking for that person and lose their commitment for them in the end for sure. That is simple logic.

This shows that being truly loyal to something or someone is indeed conditional.

No one will give their full feelings and attentions for someone else for nothing. They will seek to gain something. Therefore true loyalty is conditional in the end.

I end my Round 1 here...

Sources:
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
HAtatrah

Pro

Thank you, opponent, for accepting.
Because I realized not the implications of the time restraints I placed on this debate, I will apologize and wait until my next round to respond to my opponents arguments. I apologize for this. I have to leave momentarily and will not be able to respond satisfactorily in the time I have.
Do you know how to change the time restraints without messing everything up. sorry again and thanks.
BillBonJovi

Con

Pro, I do not believe the time restraints can be changed after the debate has started, so we will still each have 12 hours for each round that we have unfortunately.

Seeing as you could rebut my arguments I made in Round 1, I will just say my argument is extended for now.

I await your argument in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
HAtatrah

Pro

I thank con for his patience,

"Without conditions or limitations" is a satisfying definition; however,the implications that I am "basically" saying "that someone who is truly loyal does not intent to gain anything from the person they choose to be loyal to" is falsely contrived. This is neither implied in my opening argument nor can it be deduced based on the preceding definition. Con has no basis on which to place this statement.

I agree with con that it is important to address why a person would want to be like that. In order to claim loyalty towards someone or something, one must possess legitimate reasons for having this loyalty. This argument addresses those who do in fact contain within them this solid resolve not to falter in their loyalties and why they are so adamant concerning said loyalties.

Loyalty, the feeling of devotion one has for someone or something; allegiance, the duty a citizen has for his country; and fidelity, unwavering devotion to someone or something, are synonymous and all(based on the given definitions from dictionary.reference.com) inextricably interwoven with the idea of constancy(i.e. the quality of being enduring and unchanging(i.e. unconditional))

The two paragraph following con's "ultimate question" are based solely on speculation. The fact that con states that if the "so called true-loyalist who seeks the well being cannot get that well being then the so called true-loyalist will eventually gain a disliking for that person and lose their commitment for them in the end for sure" is "simple logic" then it is clear that he is placing a blanket statement over all loyalists, and more importantly, he does not realize that human actions are often not based on this said "simple logic."

Concerning cons final statement: the usage of "no one" is flagrant. To say "no one" is to remove even the slightest of possibilities that someone might fall into a separate category. This concern not this debate particularly or directly. I am merely stating that such blanket references to most peoples(in this case loyalists) as wholes are the very foundations on which bigotry is raised.

Again do I thank con for his patience and I await his response.
BillBonJovi

Con

I thank Pro for his response in Round 3 and now onto my Round 3...

Contention 1:

Pro first said:
"the implications that I am "basically" saying "that someone who is truly loyal does not intent to gain anything from the person they choose to be loyal to" is falsely contrived. This is neither implied in my opening argument nor can it be deduced based on the preceding definition. Con has no basis on which to place this statement."

REBUTTAL: Yes I do have a basis on which to place this statement. It's down to personality, one person can love another but the other person may not care at all.

Someone can be truly loyal for someone at first, but eventually they can disown them due to certain problems. For example in 2009 a father murdered his five young children after discovering his wife was leaving him for another man. James Harrison shot and killed his son, 7, and his four young daughters as they lay in their beds then he then drove off in his car and shot himself. [1]

Just think about it, all those years his was loyal to his wife but in the end he killed the children because he didn't want them to live their lives without him living with them. It was a selfish act that he did and it certainly was not true loyalty in the end and certainly not loyal to his wife. The evidence I have shown should disprove Pro's argument.
And as Pro said in his Round 1 "a person with true loyalty will remain committed to that something or someone no matter what happens", well this has certainly disproved Pro's argument by now.

Contention 2:

Pro then said:
"I agree with con that it is important to address why a person would want to be like that. In order to claim loyalty towards someone or something, one must possess legitimate reasons for having this loyalty. This argument addresses those who do in fact contain within them this solid resolve not to falter in their loyalties and why they are so adamant concerning said loyalties."

REBUTTAL: Pro should certainly have stated this in his Round 1, not his final Round. Therefore Pro should be marked as misconduct and the arguments I have made still stand.

Contention 3:

Pro then said:
"Loyalty, the feeling of devotion one has for someone or something; allegiance, the duty a citizen has for his country; and fidelity, unwavering devotion to someone or something, are synonymous and all(based on the given definitions from dictionary.reference.com) inextricably interwoven with the idea of constancy(i.e. the quality of being enduring and unchanging(i.e. unconditional))"

REBUTTAL: what I said in contentions 1 and 2 argue against this as well.

Contention 4:

Pro then said:
"The two paragraph following con's "ultimate question" are based solely on speculation. The fact that con states that if the "so called true-loyalist who seeks the well being cannot get that well being then the so called true-loyalist will eventually gain a disliking for that person and lose their commitment for them in the end for sure" is "simple logic" then it is clear that he is placing a blanket statement over all loyalists, and more importantly, he does not realize that human actions are often not based on this said "simple logic.""

REBUTTAL: I am not placing a blanket statement over all loyalists; I was just trying to explain why most people's loyalty will not last unless it meets the conditions the so called true-loyalist desires. In Pro's opening Round Pro did not state that this debate is about ALL loyalists so I did not need to argue based on an entire population. The simple logic topic I was talking about was just an example I used to argue my case.

Contention 5:

Pro finally said:
"Concerning cons final statement: the usage of "no one" is flagrant. To say "no one" is to remove even the slightest of possibilities that someone might fall into a separate category. This concern not this debate particularly or directly. I am merely stating that such blanket references to most peoples(in this case loyalists) as wholes are the very foundations on which bigotry is raised."

REBUTTAL: Based on what I have said in the previous contentions my argument still stands, and yet Pro did not give any evidence for this argument at all.

Conclusion of debate:

Overall in this debate explained that being truly loyal to something or someone is conditional and not unconditional as Pro argued in his opening Round. I also explained that a person with true loyalty won't remain committed to that something or someone if something in particular happens and I gave evidence to argue my case as well.

Unfortunately it seems Pro's intentions for this debate was very different to what he stated in his opening round. Pro's failure to not properly state his intentions in the opening this debate are an act of misconduct. Also Pro has not given any evidence for his arguments at all so his arguments are not all that valid because of this.

I thank Pro for this debate it was been a fun experience, but I now must urge a Con vote. Good play to Pro and I will look forward to possibly debating with you again in the future.

Sources:
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
no worries HAtatrah. It was good to debate with you as well :)
Posted by HAtatrah 6 years ago
HAtatrah
Thanks for participating bro, Being my first ever debate, it is clear I have much yet to learn. Thanks for the help.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
HAtatrahBillBonJoviTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro tried to goal post shift and was not prepared for his own debate
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
HAtatrahBillBonJoviTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con finished strong, this could have used at least another round.