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

Quality innovate unity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/21/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 24381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Can quality innovate unity? No, obviously not! Quality can never be a cause for getting unity. It is always a result of high intention, sincere efforts, intelligence, direction, innovative execution, perception and ideologies. It represents the wise choice of many alternatives.

There are ample of other causes which lead one's path to unity. The first and foremost important path to bring unity at micro and macro level is ideology. Same ideology, same thinking leads unity.

The following quote raise out the same:
"And all the books you've read have been read by other people. And all the songs you've loved have been heard by other people. And that girl that's pretty to you is pretty to other people. and that if you looked at these facts when you were happy, you would feel great because you are describing 'unity."
― Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Though same ideologies innovate unity; same qualities do not innovate unity at all. This can be explained by simple example: Two superstars having quality of acting and articulating can never be friends. Here ego and the feeling of up gradation by downgrading other exist. There is a very good Indian proverb: In one scabbard (pouch for keeping sword) there cannot be two swords! Two personalities who are qualitative in same field can never be friends; can never unite. Ya if their ideology meets or if they agree at any topic then they could shake hands. Thus, quality did not play any role in innovating unity.

Other factor responsible for unity is 'need'. Mahatma Gandhi was able to unite India because all Indians were eager to seek freedom. The need of independence unite a big sub continent even in that period where telephones and mobile phones were still unknown! Here one may argue that quality of Mahatma Gandhi united people of India. So let me clear that quality of Mahatma Gandhi retained the unity and did not innovate it. The root cause for unity was independence.

Thus one can say quality can retain unity but cant innovate it.

One more example to clarify my point of view: There is a terrorist who is a good orator. This terrorist convince other innocents that the particular society is not good for them. This way good quality of oration brain washed the innocents and a scenario so created where all were disunited and affected by terror. So point is good quality is misused for dis unifying the already united society!

Once again I conclude saying the same that Quality can never innovate unity but the ideologies, sense of need and sense of agreement on a topic creates unity.


I disagree I believe that quality can innovate unity take Argentina in the 1986 world cup over all an average side but the superior quality of maradonna made have the unity required to win the world cup witch they would have not done with out his quality thus I believe that in sport at times quality does invite unity and there for quality can and does innovate unity
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly I thank the opponent to accept the debate. Also I would request the opponent to argue with rich text and correct spellings which will help me to interpret his arguments.

Now moving back to debate: According to pro, quality don't innovate unity; he tries to prove by giving an example of world cup 1996. So it is essential to clarify the topic.

First let me clear the meaning of the word TEAM. According to Oxford online dictionary;
Team means 'a group of people working or playing together'.

Here I think my opponent know the meaning of 'together'. Together means united. Thus a team itself means a UNITED group of people. So my opponent's argument of having Maradona to unite the team is baseless because in such an important competition a team (as its meaning says) is already united! Maradona's quality was hitting marvelous goals. Any goal hit by him surely increased the self confidence and stamina of the team but how his quality united (the already united) team is vague. Moreover, as I mentioned in round 1, 'the need' brings unity. Here team Argentina needed victory as well as world cup and so they played being united, keeping aside personal egos if any. So not the quality of any sportsman but the need to win brings unity in a team. One can say quality of each team mate retained unity but never brought unity.

Now let me elaborate the topic more:
Imagine a situation in which many qualitative people are sitting in a big conference hall. Suddenly, a big earthquake comes. Those (so called) qualitative person run for their own lives without caring of others. Does the quality of each person able to unite all the people in such extreme condition? No! That's what I want to explain.

As I mentioned above and even in round 1 that quality retains the unity but never brings it. To make myself more clear let me put a good example. Suppose a machine is working. Each of its part have to be connected properly so that collective (united) working of each part results a task. Each part should be quality checked. Now think all the quality parts are working together to complete a task. If a bad (having poor quality) part is connected, the machine may stop working. Thus quality of each part retained unity and so a task by machine was completed. But who connected each quality part, who united each quality part.? Humans. The trained humans. Here quality of human is not needed to unite those parts but whatever he has learnt and whatever he was trained in, he executed the same.

In first round, my second sentence was the same:unity is always a result of high intention, sincere efforts, intelligence, direction, innovative execution, perception and ideologies. It represents the wise choice of many alternatives.

Even a leader who has good leadership qualities don't bring unity but retain the unity. This is explained by example of Mahatma Gandhi in round 1.

Now I will conclude here with the following quote:
-ROBERT M. PIRSIG, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I hope above quote convincingly convince my argument. Quality sort out the united waves (like waves) but never unite the disunited waves.

Thus I conclude my second round.


sedgwick1991 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I don't understand why my opponent forfeited the golden chance of elaborating his opinion in this round. If my opponent was going to be busy in these days of debate then he should not have accepted the challenge! Why is my opponent not loyal to debate and its rule??? Any way...This is last round and here I will not put any new argument but conclude up the topic...I hope my opponent will at least respond in this round...

Do you know?
A fashionable idea in technical circles is that quantity not only turns into quality at some extreme of scale, but also does so according to principles we already understand. A million, or perhaps a billion, fragmentary insults will eventually yield wisdom that surpasses that of any well-thought-out essay, so long as sophisticated secret statistical algorithms recombine the fragments. This fact automatically supports me. According to this fact, Quantity (unity) as a whole may give birth to a quality that is may innovate quality. This is exactly inverse of the topic! Not quality innovate unity but unity innovate quality!!! For example: The united spare parts working efficiently results or innovate quality of the same machine or car in which they are fixed. So united and efficient working of each spare part determined quality of a machine as a whole!


Thus, In a nutshell...
1. Quality never innovate unity but retain it.
2. The root cause behind unity is ideology and need of something or someone. (One might have heard a saying that two enemies also unite sometimes to defeat some other. Unity occurs even in enemies when the need and goal is same...where quality plays role here?)
3. Unity may innovate quality yet quality never innovate unity...

Following are the quotes which support my opinion directly or indirectly:
a) "We are all equal in the fact that we are all different. We are all the same in the fact that we will never be the same. We are united by the reality that all colours and all cultures are distinct & individual. We are harmonious in the reality that we are all held to this earth by the same gravity. We don't share blood, but we share the air that keeps us alive. I will not blind myself and say that my black brother is not different from me. I will not blind myself and say that my brown sister is not different from me. But my black brother is he as much as I am me. But my brown sister is she as much as I am me."
― C. JoyBell C.

b)"Equality is not a concept. It's not something we should be striving for. It's a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women, and the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who's confronted with it. We need equality."
― Joss Whedon

Both the quotes indirectly oppose the topic and support me. In quote (a) We are united and equal though quality of each is different. We say this as unity in diversity. So diverse qualities unite for a reason but the reason for this unification is of course not the quality.

In quote (b) It is described that equality will be achieved when there will be balance from both side yet presently there is imbalance in every culture which resist unity. So the point is every culture has its own quality commandments, rules, advices and even qualitative ideal person like Jesus, Lord Krishna, Buddha etc..yet SUCH QUALITIES STILL NOT ABLE TO UNITE THE WORLD!


From my side I have concluded my arguments and opinion to the best of my knowledge with examples and incidents..I hope my opponent will respect the rules of a debate and reply in this last round...


sedgwick1991 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by karan 4 years ago
It is sad that only 1 hour is left for my opponent to argue for this debate...he had got 72 hours to argue...such a good topic will remain unconcluded if in these 1 hour my opponent dont argue...hope...
No votes have been placed for this debate.