The Instigator
DarthVitiosus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bwacit
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable

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: 12/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 67396
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

DarthVitiosus

Pro

Introduction & Premises
I as Pro will be arguing in favor of the resolution. I will have the burden of proof. I will be arguing perfection should be considered undesirable.

Perfection:"The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible[1]"

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

As the definition above clearly defines, perfection should be considered undesirable. I will present my substantive arguments in Round 2.

No "I accept" shenanigans either, post your argument in the first round.
Bwacit

Con

SOURCES

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://blackbirdpress.org...
http://www.forbes.com...

INTRO

I have accepted the Opposition side of the motion that perfection should be considered undesirable.

To start, I would like to define this motion. I agree with the Pro's definition of perfection. I would like to point out that the word 'undesirable' is in the motion. This means that the Proposition is suggesting that we should not even try to strive for perfection, and have lower expectations.

Since the Pro did not have a weighing mechanism for this debate, I will issue one now. I would like this debate to be judged upon whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection.

POINTS

1) High Expectations
Judge, even if we can never reach it in the end, isn't it important to aim high? According to the New York Times, most of the time, when a person sets a goal for their self to achieve, they end up below their expectations. So therefore, if we set a low or average expectation for ourselves, we can expect to end up below average, or having not achieved our goal. I agree that perfection IS impossible, however, if we set an unachievable goal, we may end up not getting it, but we will at least have a better result than if we did not strive for perfection.
Also, according to Forbes, having high expectations actually give you motivation in training or attempting to reach your dream. Think about it, if President Obama had not set out to become president, and thought that it was just too big a goal for an African American man, and set lower expectations, he would not be our president. If Taylor Swift hadn't given up everyone to move to Nashville, and thought that it was too unlikely that she would be a star, she would still be singing to songs in her living room.
Judge, as you can see, it is possible to achieve your dreams, but only if you strive for perfection a and have high expectations.

2) Will help with disappointment.
Judge, if you have not gotten your goal, and it was a realistic one too, you will probably feel very down and like you have failed. However, as Blackbird Press put it, "with very high or improbable goals, if you do not reach them, you have still acquired some great knowledge and skill, and since you knew from the start that perfection was impossible, you feel less like a failure and more like you have simply experimented with fate."
This shows that by desiring perfection, you feel better and more accomplished in the end.

Thank you for your time, and due to these reasons and many more the Opposition (Con) should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DarthVitiosus

Pro

Rebuttals:
" I would like to define this motion."
It is not a motion.

" I would like this debate to be judged upon whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection."
Is that what the resolution stated? The resolution states, "Perfection Should be Considered Undesirable." Not "whichever side can best prove that we should or should not strive for perfection." I am not going to allow Con to change the burden of proof to suit Con's benefits.

"We can never reach it in the end, isn't it important to aim high.....According to the New York Times...when a person sets a goal for their self to achieve, they end up below their expectations...if we set a low or average expectation for ourselves, we can expect to end up below average, or having not achieved our goal. I agree that perfection IS impossible...we set an unachievable goal, we may end up not getting it, but we will at least have a better result than if we did not strive for perfection."

Creating goals is irrelevant to striving for perfection. Goals themselves, don't equal perfection because one can still have many faults. High expectations don't equal perfection either. My opponent has created a false dilemma here because goals and high expectations are not synonymous with striving for perfection[1]. It is misinformation on the part of the New York Times. It was not based on any scientific data but conjecture. My opponent's use of this source is an appeal to authority[2]. Who said perfection was impossible? Not I so I am not sure who Con is agreeing with.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...
[2]http://www.nizkor.org...


"2) Will help with disappointment."

My opponent only offered conjecture that was unsubstantiated by any quantitative or qualitative evidence.

ARGUMENTS:
#1. Perfection=Stagnation
Con's arguments related little to perfection itself. Allow me to retort. I think perfection can be achieved unlike Con. Why? Perfection is relative to the eye's of the beholder. Perfection in itself suggests something is "faultless." If one sees something has no faults then there is no need to improve. Therefore, an extremely obese man may maintain his obesity because he sees no fault in what he has become. A nervous student may maintain his nervousness because he sees no fault in what he does. If perfection is seen already, there is no need for change.

My opponent does not discuss the dilemma at all of what happens when perfection is reached. I explained it before in the scenarios I listed above. Scientific progression or Research & Development is inherently based on imperfection[3]. For things to be perfect suggests there is no need to change anything. Therefore, perfection is inherently stagnation because there are no faults and there is nothing needing to change.

[3]http://www.rdmag.com...
Bwacit

Con

Judge, things can always be improved upon, and therefore perfection can never be reached. My opponent was stating that I hadn't said what would happen if you were to reach perfection, however, perfection can ever be reached, therefore leaving it something to STRIVE for rather than actually achieve.

REBUTTALS

1) Perfection=Stagnation

Judge, stagnation is a failure to develop, process, or advance, [1]. The Proposition is trying to delude you into thinking that perfection is commonly reached and prohibits you from advancing. Judge, how many times have you EVER in your life reached "perfection" and believed that you could not have done anything differently?
There is always a way and a reason to improve, showing that this points is beyond a doubt improbable, invalid, and does not support this debate.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

STRENGTHENING

1) High Expectations.
In this point I was attempting to state that you always want to aim high [2], towards perfection, and consider it DESIRABLE, but not achievable. Desirable means wanted, and you should want perfection, but know that you cannot get it [3]. My opponent's refute to this point was that creating goals is not the same as striving for perfection, but let me say, whenever I said 'high expectations' I was referring to perfection, if I made that unclear.

[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] http://www.nytimes.com...;

2) Helps with disappointment.
Judge, my opponents refute to that was simply that I had no relevant data which relates to sources. First of all, both of these situations are merely hypothetical, and I can see no "data" on the Pro's side of this debate either. And for sources??? I used Mew York Times, Forbes, (both of which are VERY reliable and highly acclaimed sources) Blackbird Press [4], and the Dictionary. How are these not reliable? Maybe I stated no "data" from them, but I do have reliable proof backing me up.

[4] http://blackbirdpress.org...

And let's talk about the Pro's sources, shall we? Their first two sources are merely DEFINITIONS of the big phrases they used, 'authoritative' and 'false dilemma', showing that he was simply putting down these sources to HAVE sources, even though they in no way help to support his side. And finally, if you click on the Pro's third source, it takes you to a link on Korean Internet! This is in no way whatsoever related to our topic, showing that his source and relating points are invalid.

CONCLUSION

Thank you for your time, and due to the fact that his sources are completely irrelevant and his one point is invalid, the Pro side of this debate has no points standing. However, I have used reliable, relevant sources and have two points still standing, showing that the Con side should win this debate.

Thank you for your patience.
Debate Round No. 2
DarthVitiosus

Pro

My opponent ignored my important point.

"Perfection is relative to the eye's of the beholder. Perfection in itself suggests something is "faultless." If one sees something has no faults then there is no need to improve"

My opponent can not define perfection.Nor can my opponent point to authorities on what is perfection is and is not.Perfection is applied relative to each person. What my opponent considers perfection may not be perfection to me.My opponent is inherently stating that she is an authority on perfection.But perfection is inherently subjective.Therefore, it is impossible for my opponent to decide what is perfection what is not.It is impossible for my opponent to make the claim whether someone has achieved perfection or not.

"My opponent was stating that I hadn't said what would happen if you were to reach perfection, however, perfection can ever be reached, therefore leaving it something to STRIVE for rather than actually achieve."

I decide myself when I reach perfection, not Con.When I have reached perfection,I have no faults.My opponent has no authority on what perfection is to other people.This is Con attempting to claim her view of perfection is universal.I will state for myself, I soundly reject it.I think perfection is achieved whenever I state it has been reached.

"how many times have you EVER in your life reached "perfection" and believed that you could not have done anything differently?"

I have achieved perfection many times in my life. There are many many religious followers who believe their religion is perfect[1]. There are many people who see themselves as perfect.Who is my opponent to deny their beliefs and state they are not perfect?

[1]http://www.post-gazette.com...

"There is always a way and a reason to improve, showing that this points is beyond a doubt improbable, invalid, and does not support this debate."

On what authority does Pro have to tell someone else they have a reason to improve?

"Aim high [2], towards perfection, and consider it DESIRABLE, but not achievable."

Again, my opponent if offering more assumptions. Who says that I am "striving perfection?" I never stated that. Who said majority of people are striving for perfection? There is no evidence of that. On what merit, does Pro have to state what is desirable for all people?

"I can see no "data" on the Pro's side of this debate...And for sources???"

Where did I make assertions claiming what perfection is?Con has made these claims and has no authority to make such a claim. Con's sources don't offer any evidence either.I challenge anyone to read it to figure that out.Con's premises are extremely subjective and has as much validity as anyone discussing perfection. It was only conjecture, therefore it is as true as the dream I had last night, it is only true for me not anyone else.

Read my Round 2 argument again, Vote Pro.
Bwacit

Con

In the final argument, here is what Pro stated:

1) Perfection is different for everybody.
Very well, we can say that is true. Now, let's assume that we have all reached perfection - that is a good thing, isn't it? So we should all desire for perfection, showing that whether or not it is reachable it still best to desire perfection, showing that this point actually supports Con in this debate.

2) "I decide when I have reached perfection."
Okay, fine. But when you have reached perfection, That is a good thing, so whether or not you can reach it, it is good to desire perfection so that you CAN reach it..if that is what you believe.

3) "I achieved perfection may times in my life. There are many religious followers who believe that their religion is perfect."
So when you achieved perfection, or these religious followers did, they probably enjoyed it, or were satisfied, which is a good thing. This shows that if you DO believe that it. Is possible to reach perfection, then you DO desire or attempt to strive for perfection , and my point remains valid.

http://www.post-gazette.com...

4) I cannot tell people they need to improve.
Okay, so I can't. But as I have stated time and time again, if you don't need to improve, then you have desired and achieved perfection, and the Con side should win this debate.

5) "Con doesn't have data."
Neither of us do. This is a philosophical debate, these are all assumptions. However, my assumptions are backed up by three reliable sources, where as the Pro has one. And I have 2 standing points, and the Pro has 0.

Thank you, Pro, for very interesting and intriguing debate. And for all those voting, I strongly urge a Con vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
No.
Posted by Bwacit 2 years ago
Bwacit
Hey are you going to post an argument for round 2??
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Don't ever come back.
Posted by Shehrozalam 2 years ago
Shehrozalam
Yeah, thats a nice one, i wonder where you picked that up though. Anyway, still waiting for the round2 of your argument.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
And? The debate is between A and B, it is time for you to C your way out.
Posted by Shehrozalam 2 years ago
Shehrozalam
Well, what I mean is that "perfection should be considered undesirable" is the wrong topic to debate on, because going by the dictionary definition of perfection, everyone can have a different definition of "faultless"
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
You don't mean the definition of perfection from what I read. You are referring to what is associated with perfection. This is not a debate about what is associated with perfection, my opponent my attempt to make it that. I won't.
Posted by Shehrozalam 2 years ago
Shehrozalam
There is a mere problem with this debate. The definition of perfection has been stated and agreed upon, but the boundaries havent been. Who gets to decide what perfect is, god(religion) ? Humans? If humans, then what kind of humans? Rich, poor, celebrities, housewives, intellectuals, retards? If it comes down to personal definition of perfection, then this debate is useless, because we cant force our definition of perfection on anyone else. For some, imperfections maybe perfection for some people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.