The Instigator
Schopenhauer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Revenge Solves Everything

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 3 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,892 times Debate No: 44503
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Schopenhauer

Pro

I will be arguing that revenge does indeed solve everything. Forst round for acceptance, no trolling. I wish my opponent the best of luck
xXCryptoXx

Con

Ave.


I accept thine Challenge!


Revenge - "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands."[1]


Note: The use of the words "solves everything" as written in the debate topic, implies that revenge is the solution to every problem in existence.

The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that revenge solves every single problem in existence.

Vale.

[1] https://www.google.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Schopenhauer

Pro

Thank you for accepting.
Before I begin, let me clarify. By revenge solves everything I mean the problems that humanity faces, because revenge is an abstract concept of the human mind it can not be applied on literal universal terms.
Now I will begin with the debate.
1. Revenge solves the problem of useless beings_ Because we as humans cannot determine what a useless person inherently is, then those who have been wronged by said person may seek vengeance, thereby eliminating the need for people to go into fantastic wastes of time about whether someone is guilty or innocent, or should be allowed to continue living. These issues as a whole should still be debated, but having someone be put through an equal "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" scenario, we are given more time to discuss and put closure on issues like the death penalty etc. Revenge does this and also solves a major problem in our society and all societies afterwards that do not use some means of population control. Revenge, in effect, weeds out those who have done great wrongs so that we may solves other issues. By great wrongs I mean murder, rape etc. not petty theft or anything like that. These do not classify as "great wrongs".
2. Revenge brings closure- Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of punching someone who has wronged them in some way knows the excellent feeling of a a fist full of passion, rage, and hatred flying into the face of your foe. As soon as this is over a great feeling of peace enters you, as if some cosmic wrong has been solved. Revenge solves the problem of not having closure, and has a feeling of subtle euphoria attached to it.
3. Revenge solves the problem (somewhat) of hurting the planet: Because of the dense population of the planet, we need a population control method. If we have less people on the planet then in turn the planet will stop being over taxed and slowly destroyed.
Now I could go on for a while about why revenge solves everything, but the central use of it is as a population control method. Most of the issues in the world are caused by overpopulation, so this means that governments and the members in their society will not have to worry about moral conundrums because there own population will be solving it without them. Of course, new legal systems will have to be formed about whether or not a certain case is worth revenge, but overall to me it seems a cost effective and quick way to cut down the population without slaughtering innocents.
xXCryptoXx

Con


My opponent did not even come to near in closing the gap as to how revenge solves the infinite amount of problems that exist in this world.


But all in all, there is one reason my opponent can never win this debate.


That is because what constitutes a problem Is highly subjective. For example, my opponent seems to think that overpopulation is a problem, but what if I told you that a problem is that we don’t have enough people on this plant?


Obviously both are a matter of opinion and both may be considered a problem to different individuals.


For my opponent to fulfill his BOP, he must show that revenge is the answer to every possible problem that may exist as an opinion among any individual in existence.


Now to put the icing on the cake:


If an individual finds revenge to be a problem on the world, for they believe that peace, love, and forgiveness are the answers to humanity’s problems, then my opponent can never justify revenge as a solution, for revenge is actually the problem itself.


To take it further, I can use this example to rebut every one of my opponent’s arguments.


1. Revenge solves the problem of useless beings:


If an individual believes that the problem is that useless beings should not be subjected to revenge, then revenge cannot be the solution.


2. Revenge brings closure:


If an individual believes that the problem is that people think revenge brings closure when it ultimately does not, then revenge cannot be the solution.


3. Revenge solves the problem of hurting the planet (due to overpopulation):


If an individual believes that every person should only die through natural death, then revenge cannot therefore be used as a means of population control.



Also, revenge is not the solution to 3+2.


This right here is enough to win, for even if you rebutted every one of my arguments above, you cannot rebut this. Even further, you still must show that revenge solves the infinite amount of problems in existence. That is a burden of proof, that simply cannot be fulfilled.


Debate Round No. 2
Schopenhauer

Pro

Rebuttals
"My opponent did not even come to near in closing the gap as to how revenge solves the infinite amount of problems that exist in this world."
Yes I did. Overpopulation is the central problem in this world, and I will present five points of why.
1. Overpopulation causes world hunger- Because humans cannot be relied upon to share resources, the only solution is to have a large amount of resources available to all, the way to achieve this is through a smaller population.
2. The planet dying- If the planet has a smaller population then it becomes easier to stop harvesting the planets resources to to great of a degree, there by saving the planet from death and decay.
3. Greed- If the population is reduced then there will be no more need for greed, as there will be enough resources to spread around without people needing to claw there way for them.
4. Corporate power-If the population is severely decreased then there will be less corporate power, as the man power that corporations rely on will have been decreased.
5. Weakness- If the population is reduced then people will no longer be able to rely on others to do there work for them, there by eliminating weakness in people who will have to rely on themselves.
Even if I cant prove that overpopulation is the problem to everything, I can show how revenge solves other things. Because it is a dirty but quick way to solve disputes, it solves anger and hatred so that it does not explode on everyone, and in general it solves many issues.
"That is because what constitutes a problem Is highly subjective. For example, my opponent seems to think that overpopulation is a problem, but what if I told you that a problem is that we don"t have enough people on this plant?"
Then I would ask you to show me some evidence. Do not say that I have to prove contrary to your claim that "there is not enough people on this planet" Because in this case it is you making the claim, not I.
"For my opponent to fulfill his BOP, he must show that revenge is the answer to every possible problem that may exist as an opinion among any individual in existence."
This website might as well not exist if every problem is subjective. NO problems are subjective, they are determined to be problems by something called logic, evidence, genetics, and society.
"If an individual finds revenge to be a problem on the world, for they believe that peace, love, and forgiveness are the answers to humanity"s problems, then my opponent can never justify revenge as a solution, for revenge is actually the problem itself."
You still need to prove that peace, love, and forgiveness are answers to humanities problems. I will go ahead and prove why they are not, even though it is your responsibility first to prove why they are.
They are not because they are not part of human nature. Our "condition" if you will is a condition of constant war, fighting, and dying. Humans will never be able to solve every problem with your love and compassion, because we all know that in our hearts we are animals meant to survive and tempered through the fires of natural selection and evolution. What we feel as compassion, love, etc. are simply drives for our species own survival, they are not actually self contained, they are used so that our genetic code can be passed through to the next generation, even if they are used at all.
"If an individual believes that the problem is that useless beings should not be subjected to revenge, then revenge cannot be the solution."
Yes it can. Because whether you like it or not is irrelevant, I can subject people who have done a wrong to me (murdered a relative etc.) to my vengeance.
"f an individual believes that the problem is that people think revenge brings closure when it ultimately does not, then revenge cannot be the solution."
I do not believe that the crunching noise of a broken nose beneath your fist does not bring closure. Why would a single person matter in the context of the human race about revenge being closure? Just because something does not work for one person does not mean it does not work for the entirety of the human race.
"If an individual believes that every person should only die through natural death, then revenge cannot therefore be used as a means of population control."
Once more, yes it can. If I go up to somebody and blow their brains out (purely hypothetical mind you) then it wont matter whether or not you approve of it, will it?
Overall, what you have been saying in these three points are either tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Just because one person believes or doesn't believe in something does not mean that everyone else believes or doesn't believe in something. If I am the only person in the world that says the sky is purple with a tint of bright green than I am not automatically correct.
"Also, revenge is not the solution to 3+2."
I agree, as I clarified earlier I said that because revenge is an abstract concept to the human mind it CANNOT BE APPLIED ON UNIVERSAL TERMS. I said this before anyone even posted arguments, as the first round was for acceptance only.
"Even further, you still must show that revenge solves the infinite amount of problems in existence. That is a burden of proof, that simply cannot be fulfilled."
I find this a rather lazy way to win. You take what the title of the argument said at the beginning, and even though I clarified that revenge, as an abstraction, only applies to human you still keep on beating a dead horse and insisting that I must prove it as a universal concept. Well we live in an infinitesimal rock on the corner of an insignificant galaxy. Our own concepts cannot, and will never be applied in a universal fashion.
ladies and gentleman, simply use your own logic and you may find that many problems that face humanity can be ground to, in a light way, be solved by revenge.
The law itself is a system of revenge, it may be called justice but they are the same thing. Both are systems of punishment, and both keep order. Thank of how many problems justice solves, revenge solve those other problems as well to degrees. Justice is simply ingrained in our society and minds more.
Now thank of revenge in helping to solve overpopulation. Dissect overpopulation yourselves and you may realize that several other problems, greed, class disparity, the injuries dealt to the environment, can be solved by reducing the population.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Problem - a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome. [1}


A problem is subjective to the individual and this is proof. Anything that may be perceived as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with constitutes a problem. By definition, what constitutes a problem is of subjective nature.


Therefore my arguments where I state that revenge cannot be the solution to a situation where revenge is the problem still stands.


I need not even respond to my opponent’s arguments for he never fulfilled his burden of proof.


He showed that perhaps some things can be solved by revenge, but at no point did he give any argument proving that every problem can be solved with revenge.


In fact my opponent concedes to my argument that the solution to 3+2 is not revenge.


In response my opponent states, “I agree” therefore conceding that revenge is not the solution to every problem and therefore loses this debate.


He attempts to save himself by saying that revenge cannot be applied to “universal terms” but seems to just make that rule up in the middle of the debate. It says nowhere in the debate topic that revenge solves every problem except problems that exist within universal terms and it says that nowhere in Round 1.


My opponent has a problem with me winning the debate in this fashion, but if he didn’t want to be given this argument then he simply should have specified his debate topic and clarified in round 1.


[1] https://www.google.com...



Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
If you want to see my more structured and coherent arguments look at my other debates.
Posted by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
I am a bit disappointed with Pro about how this debate went considering his name is Schopenhauer. I really did enjoy Pro's prose "Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of punching someone who has wronged them in some way knows the excellent feeling of a a fist full of passion, rage, and hatred flying into the face of your foe." lol
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
It's no problem.

Just make sure you clarify very well exactly what you want to debate. If you leave any holes open many members will go for the easy win.
Posted by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
I apologize for sounding mean on part of this debate, I should have clarified more and thank you, I now have learned to more carefully state my own words.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
SchopenhauerxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a huge BoP, which he failed to show. Con demonstrated that revenge does not solve everything, particularly his argument that "problems" are subjective. Con was the only one to use a source.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SchopenhauerxXCryptoXxTied
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: Pro have himself an impossible burden of proof. I would advise pro from using absolutes in future debates. Every other criteria for voting was even besides arguments.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
SchopenhauerxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A terrible debate. Pro failed to validate his burden of proof that "Revenge Solves Everything." Pro tried to clarify the resolution of debate in Round 2 but this is not satisfactory because Con accepted what Pro presented in Round 1. It would of been better if Pro had placed his clarification about the resolution in Round 2 then he would of stood a better chance at winning the debate. Con wins the debate ad source point. Good luck to you both in future debates.