Should we acquire different skills or focus on only one skill to success?
Debate Rounds (3)
I am admittedly still torn on this question in reality, but for the purpose of this debate I will take "Con," and will argue for why we should focus on one skill for success.
I assume that the first round is primarily for acceptance, and I look forward to Pro's opening arguments in the next round.
phamminh forfeited this round.
I am not sure why Pro forfeited the last round. Nonetheless, I will provide an argument for why we should focus on one skill to succeed.
In the first round, Pro writes, “I strongly believe that we should obtain many skills to success because possessing many skill we are able to find more jobs in the market.” There are numerous yardsticks of success, and I presume Pro has in mind a stable career with a comfortable salary as his definition of success. It is surely true that someone who masters a range of different skills will (at least in theory) be in a good position to be considered for a range of various jobs and, statistically speaking, stands a higher chance of “succeeding” in his career. However, I will outline two reasons why this scenario is extremely unlikely and it is impractical for most people to be a generalist.
An important point Pro has not considered is that everyone is born different and, indeed, eventually succeeds in life in markedly different ways. In other words, we all have disparate proficiencies, aptitudes, talents, and interests. Some would eventually become scientists, some teachers, others musicians, real estate agents, cooks, or freelance photographers. Realistically, we need to admit that few people who are born to be polymaths like Leonardo da Vinci. As C.S. Lewis reminds us, "the greatest service we can do to education today is to teach fewer subjects. No one has time to do more than a very few things well before he is twenty, and when we force a boy to be a mediocrity in a dozen subjects, we destroy his standards, perhaps for life.”  Lewis is pointing out how it is almost always the case that the thinner we spread ourselves, the more likely we become the proverbial “jack of all trades, master of none.”
This leads us to another difficulty. It is clearly no coincidence that higher education today all around the world is offering increasingly specialized subjects, with technical and vocational schools also providing training in unique skill sets to gear trainees up for the job market. This gestures to the global shift over the last few decades where national economies have largely transformed from labour-intensive industries, to knowledge-based and other highly niche professions. Occupations such as forensic entomologists and aeronautical engineers require years and years of specialized training and expertise; IT associates and executives in the civil service are valued for their depth of relevant knowledge about the respective sectors. A targeted education is hence valuable for the specialized skills and knowledge that puts one in good stead for fulfulling the focused demands of today’s job market.
 C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy.
phamminh forfeited this round.
Pro has forfeited again. Please extend all my arguments.
Thank you. Vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: F/F. Not enough to decide on S/G. Surprised to see Con, who describes himself as an agnostic, quoting CS Lewis. Happy day.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.