The Instigator
AizenSousuke
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Seeginomikata
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Might makes right

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 2 votes the winner is...
AizenSousuke
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,339 times Debate No: 44328
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

AizenSousuke

Pro

First round acceptance only.

BOP is shared.

Pro will argue for might makes right.
Seeginomikata

Con

I accept the challenge.

Suggested definitions:

might - physical violence
makes right - is the means to any end
Debate Round No. 1
AizenSousuke

Pro

I would like to start by slightly amending the con's definition. Rather than might meaning physical violence, let might mean "potentential physical power".

Moving into my arguments

Potential physical power is the means to any end for the reasons that:

To achieve end results, people need to work together. The most efficient methods of having people work together are
A. Respect
B. Love
C. Fear

A. Power, and the proper of use of it, inspires respect in the people surrounding the self. This is cognitive control over people. They know and understand your power, and they admire the way you use it. They determine you to be a "just leader" and agree to work towards your common ends.

B. Love is not conscious, but rather is a deep unconscious feeling of attatchment. This attatchment can form from both psychological and physical influences. Power is means success. People are magnetically attracted to success by habit of evolution, that successful people are more fit, and therefore make better mates and produce better offspring. Powerful people often have power of life and death other their subjects. Primates are known to be subject to psychologica phenomena in which individuals who are subbordinate to one who holds power of life and death over them become and object of attatchment and even veneration. One such example is Stockhold Syndrome. A second example is the attachment people feel for their Significant Other even when in an abusive relationship. My third example is the popularity of the worship of "Gods". That people have a deep unconscious veneration for beings that hold absolute power over their lives. Generally, such Gods are angry and vengeful. The people who invent these Gods are not masochists, they are just like most humans, who desire a greater force to guide them. The Abrahamic Gods are a good example. For Jews, Christrians and Muslims, "God" is source of divine punishment and retribution, with endless suffering that awaits those who do not follow scripture. And yet, most (if not all) Jews, Christians and Muslims claim to "love God".

C. For those who do not come to love or respect their leader, fear can, at least temporarily, riegn in those of lesser power who fear injury and demise lest they should disobey.

Seeginomikata

Con

The basis of the Pro arguement is that people need to work together to achieve any end. This is an absolute, and as such is simply false. There are bound to be exceptions.

It's not that every single thing needs the teamwork of at least two people. There are plenty of things that can be done by one's self.

Imagine one is stuck in deep wilderness. There is nothing and no-one from outside society that could influence what happens. Everything you do is up to you and you alone.

On achieving ends.

Power, or potential physical power is not neccessary in order to get a group to come together to achieve and end. The biggest single argument for the con is democracy. Instead of the biggest stick running things, each person most suited for their task is elected by everyone else to complete it, in order for the end to be achieved. The best organizer is the one elected to be in charge.
Debate Round No. 2
AizenSousuke

Pro

While I dislike nitpicking semantics, I will argue that yes, every end is the product of at least two people.

In order for one to be stuck in the wilderness, it means that one has to exist. For one to exists neccessitates that at least two people worked together, and in doing so achieved the end result of producing the individual who is now lost in the woods.

On that note, I would rather we stuck to whether or not power has the ability to bring about any end.

The Con argues that there are always alternatives to power. This is true. There are always alternatives. My argument is not that power is the only way, but rather that there is always the possibility of using power as a means to any end.

No matter which situation one might find oneself in, more power can always be the answer. I do not argue that it is the only means to all ends, but that is is a means to any end. For the Con to win, the con must argue that there are situations in which power is not an option at all.
Seeginomikata

Con


There certainly must be a situation in which power is not a possible mean to an end.

Feats that require unlimited energy, or at least energy levels that are impossible for humans to achieve, cannot be done through power alone.

It is impossible to travel at the speed of light, regardless of power, since accelerating mass to such a speed would require near-infinite energy, and such energy can not possibly be realistically generated no matter how much power one individual may have.
Debate Round No. 3
AizenSousuke

Pro

The Con's last line of defense lies in a universal exception, no pun intended.

It is possible to reach the speed of light, given enough power.

There is a popular theory circulating amongst scientists and philosophers that universe might well be a computer simulation. The theory runs along the logic that if a species of intelligent beings becomes advanced enough and powerful enough, they could create a simulation complex enough to simulate a universe. In such a complex simulation, there is the possibility that intelligent life will manifest itself in the simulation and will, in turn, become advanced and powerful enough to create its own simulated universe. And thus, each universe would produce a series of nested universes, whose number would eventually eclipse that of the original non-simulated universes. Thus the theory goes that if there are more simulated universes and original universes, then it is more likely that we live in a simulation than not.

For hypothetical purposes, we can assume the above to be true. Since the speed of light was created and achieved in such a simulated universe, therefore it is possible, that given enough power, humans (or any intelligent species for that matter) could create simulation universes in which we achieve and/or create the speed of light.

Power can solve any problem.

Might has the ability to be means towards any end.

The PRO has proved that might makes right.

Vote PRO
Seeginomikata

Con

Creating a simulation of a universe does not count as mastering the speed of light. Could the creators of the simulation FIFA 2013 be considered the professional footbal players they simulated? No. They have not mastered actual footbal. They do not actually play it in the field. They just created a non-real image of people playing footbal. A simulation is not same as reality, no matter how realistic it may be.

My point that there are physical limits to what can be achieved with power still stands.
Thus power is not the means to every end.

Might does not make right.

Vote CON
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Yes, thank you for the great debate :)
Posted by AizenSousuke 3 years ago
AizenSousuke
I extend my thanks to CON, for this enjoyable debate.
Posted by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
@NPDAgeek
the term is "might makes right", not "right makes might". Otherwise, the most intelligent, wisest and knowledgable people would be able to magically conjure up strength just by being right.

Imagine a school where the jocks are the most physically inept, while the nerds who study all day can effortlessly lift weights several times their body mass. My, how things would be different :)
Posted by NPDAgeek 3 years ago
NPDAgeek
Awww yea

Let's see who can has more or less might, depending on who makes this right, which will confuse things entirely.
Posted by NPDAgeek 3 years ago
NPDAgeek
Awww yea

Let's see who can has more or less might, depending on who makes this right, which will confuse things entirely.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by eagertowin 3 years ago
eagertowin
AizenSousukeSeeginomikataTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued more convincingly, but he only proved that power can usually be used to solve any problem not that it should or always can.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
AizenSousukeSeeginomikataTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments and cons arguments seem to go a little off topic.