The Instigator
Discretion
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

THBT preserving culture has no place in the society today

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...
DoctorDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,546 times Debate No: 28755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Discretion

Con

Considering the current face the society has today, it displays well-adopted changes and innovations that carry out a new way of living --- a new culture. However, I believe that preserving culture still plays a vital role in the development of the society, especially when ethics of freshly written laws, policies and other actions of the leaders in the society are questionable. I concede to the fact that every individual copes with the widening horizons of the society, but breaking a certain culture of a well-defined population where one belongs to, by means of stepping on the values it tries to keep, is similar to destroying the foundations that make their sector unique and, at the same time, strong. Culture shaped through ages binds everyone in the society. Preserving the traditions and the associated principles with them will not only guide people now, but also in the near future.
DoctorDeku

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and I look forward to a fun and exciting round!

Right off the bat, allow me to clarify my course of advocacy in this debate; by standing in affirmation of the given motion I do not intend to argue that the correct course of action would be to do away with traditional cultures in a given society, I intend to argue that going out of one's way to preserve a specific culture does more harm than it does good.

Societies evolve, and as they do ideas and social constructs about those societies evolve as well. In the 1800's for example it was necessary for working class citizens to fall into classic gender roles so as to provide best for a family; the husband would go out and work, usually back-breaking jobs, because he had the physique and build to do so. His work was hard labor necessary for the survival of the family. The woman served an equally valuable role by taking care of the children, making sure the family's living space was habitable and cooking meals from scratch to feed her family.

Neither of these roles were demeaning, it was a necessary construct for the family to survive and prosper; however to assert that those gender roles should remain in the way the did in the 1800s would be absurd. Modern convenience dictates that a man could stay home and take care of children and a women could go to work provide for her family.

People are different, families are different and trying to force a common culture onto these unique individuals harms them. If through progress and social evolution certain cultures disappear, then that's quite honestly very disappointing. However to claim that the unique values and needs of individuals families aren't as important as trying to blindly maintain 'culture'.
Debate Round No. 1
Discretion

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. It's very exciting to discuss this issue first introduced to me in my sociology class. I hope this would be a good debate!

First and foremost, I do concede to the fact that one of the good reasons for saying that culture hampers the growth of an individual is that it does dictate a certain 'to-do' list for the person; how he or she should act, what he or she should look like, etc. But I would like to refute that culture is something that a person grows up with; it is something that is not 'forced' to him or her for the sake of culture itself. As what I have said earlier in my argument, preserving culture has its values being upheld, and there are many stakeholders benefiting from its maintenance.

According to your argument, preservation is like enacting culture, especially the old, traditional ones in a way that it inhibits adaptation of the individual in the modern society. However, this is not certainly true since culture is dynamic, and this characteristic has been established and proves to take effect until the present times. Culture grows and some of it die down eventually, if the people practicing it feel suffocated. So, it is not truly something that has to be put in a glass case. It is not that kind of preservation.

Now back to my argument, why are we preserving culture in the first place? And why is there a need to do so in this generation? And how do we do this preservation of culture?

Let's first take an example of why preserving culture would likely benefit people today, rather than destroying it or disabling it in the society. In most Asian countries, dressing into proper clothes is an ethic as well as culture, and it is defined as wearing conservative clothing (e.g. long skirts, pants, T-shirt, sleeved blouses, etc.). Now take a picture wherein the call of modernity dictates the opposite, wherein the corresponding attire should be as short as possible. I am not hinting that everyone should wear what their grandmothers and grandfathers wore during their times, but I'm giving emphasis to the loss of the very value protected by this culture accompanied by the total acceptance of this new way of dressing.

When we talk about wearing the proper clothes, we are trying to evaluate the personality; the feminine and masculine modesty. The way we dress is the way we express ourselves, and it portrays the attitude we are living with. Certain get-ups hint on the wrong side of being liberated, which in turn displays a type of disregard toward other values associated with it. This is something that we need to protect, and does not need sanctions or laws to be accomplished. In every kind of society we uphold a certain culture for a certain value that we would like the people to embody even how many years have passed.

To my second level of argument, why is there a need to call for preservation of culture in this generation? As we all know, culture is a good description of ethics, in which our new transactions seem to lack today. By preserving culture, which I would describe in my third argument, we are likely to possess ideals that would make us better and more productive individuals. A law can never be implemented without displaying ethics that most of the people uphold to be very vital, because we are philosophical beings who try to value life and how we do with it in our own ways. We can never create a utopia, but let's be positive that by having cultures preserved can make this world a social-friendly one.

Connecting these arguments leads to my final one. How do we preserve culture in the present? There's no urgent need to play the roles that our ancestors did just to maintain culture. Let's just say that these were the media that they formed to express it. And in our modern times, we have our own. As what I'm saying in this whole argument, culture is an enactment of protecting values. We can develop several alternatives to preserve culture that would not hamper any of our activities. Like in my example a while ago, the culture of conservative dressing can still be portrayed by being modest in some 'bearable' ways; maybe not only in dressing decently but by uttering good words, too. There are many ways to preserve culture that would make us guided and freer at the same time!
DoctorDeku

Pro

When my opponent agrees to my major premise, that societies evolve and change over time, he affirms the burden I intended to prove. I made it clear from the get-go that I never intended to argue that we should eliminate our culture or forget our roots; instead I argue that we shouldn't actively work to preserve culture because it prevents progress and unjustly forces people into certain roles that the culture would dictate.

As societies evolve and ideas about what that society should encompass evolve, we stop doing certain things; when the U.S. abolished slavery, we slowly let go of a nationalized idea of white supremacy. With that change and the pursuit of equality we lost certain chauvinistic values that we now romanticize, the but core essence of those values were never lost.

The fact is that by trying to hold onto the values from 'the good 'ol days' we are blinded to the progress we make in the here and now; we sacrifice our new positive values. If abolitionists hadn't fought to end slavery in the 1800s because of the claim that America's culture would be destroyed, we would have millions of people still bound into slavery today and we would treat people as property.

That example isn't restricted to the past either; by trying to 'defend the nuclear family' as we are in the status quo, we unjustly deny gays all across the country the right to marry because it's 'the right thing to do

These things considered, my opponent's argument about preserving these values highlights the simple truth, that some of these values don't need to be protected. We must never prevent progress just so that we can try to prevent progress just to hold onto values that we believe to be right; the right values will always surface and maintain themselves in the end.

In conclusion, we don't need to work to preserve culture, we just need to let whatever will be, be. The good values that we should promote and uphold will always find a way to remain in the end, whereas through blindly protecting culture we prohibit progress and keep positive change from happening.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
Discretion

Con

I would like to give some rebuttals regarding the burden given to me by your government side. When I conceded to the dynamism of society, I was emphasizing my opposition on the point explicitly stated by my contender that culture is absurd when brought upon by the people to the modern world today. Technically speaking, I felt that the clash was a bit vague, and let some important terms undefined. Examples are values, preservation and culture. I was giving my presented characterization of preservation of culture, but I felt that your government side was a bit unresponsive about it.

Before I present and elucidate my arguments in this debate, I would like to clear out some points that my contender failed to define correctly. First of all is the word value. In this matter and in the essence of the context, I was saying clearly about ethics and generally-accepted truths and principles by people, so I believe that it's a wrong claim to have 'right values' since the word itself proves to be positive. Second is the word culture. I was connoting it as the way of living held on for a long time by people, and is still retained because it is still cherished as important for their own growth. These made the real matter of the debate unrealized.

Since it is a value-assessment debate, we are judging whether it is important to preserve culture or not in the society that we live today, just to remind the opposing side. In line with this, I would like to refute some statements coming from the government side, to bring forth my new arguments.

I really felt that culture preservation cannot hamper 'progress and unjustly force' people, not unless it is dressed as something that an individual should strictly follow; that it will be the margin of one's actions. In my previous argument, I clearly said that culture is not something to put in a glass case, that it should always stay the way it is. Culture grows with society in a form that people create for themselves, which characterizes culture as dynamic. Further substantiating it, detriments would be met if these traditions are destroyed and disabled, not necessarily totally eliminated. Problems occur not by eliminating but by destroying it. Culture, being dynamic, already has its natural extinction, that it gets eradicated by the people whenever they feel it oppressing. However this can never be a blanket policy;some countries like India for example, has the caste system which is still enacted until today. However this clearly proves that culture is something that is not stagnant, and therefore posting no reason for not actively engaging in it. It is a way of life after all; a person cannot wash it away completely from his personality or way of thinking.

Following these rebuttals, I would present three important criteria why we should preserve culture in my next post. With that, I wish to extend.
DoctorDeku

Pro

The majority of my opponent's prior speech is analysis on the semantic issues present in this round. He claims, in so many words, that I have offered abusive terms to guide this discussion and that those terms should not be accepted; these terms are 'Value(s)', "Government' and 'Progress'. However, I have offered no semantic interpretation in this round. I haven't offered any framework whatsoever.

My arguments in this round should not be discounted because of my opponent's disappointment at my arguments. They have been sincerely warranted and are the logical extension of my opponent's arguments. Not all values intrinsic to human nature are good ones, but they have been values that people have traditionally held. We wouldn't allow integrated marriage following the emancipation of the slave because it was the 'right thing to do'; however as our society has evolved we've weeded out that racism and made it unacceptable; image if we had not done so but had instead fought to defend this 'culture', we would have hampered progress and would still have a wide-spread ideal that racism is okay.

That said I will be brief here; Con's biggest argument is that as people change societies must also change. Unless they do, then progress will not be able to occur. But the values are the most valuable; love, compassion, hard work -- they will always be maintained even if not in the same way. It sucks when cultures die, but it is necessary for the progress of humanity.

Culture is not a bad thing, but we must let progress take it's course; culture that is not destructive will survive by it's own merit and that which doesn't will fade away.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
DiscretionDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had similar conduct and good spelling and grammar. Pro had very good points, and was more convincing to me. No sides used sources.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
DiscretionDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Culture is not a bad thing, but we must let progress take it's course; culture that is not destructive will survive by it's own merit and that which doesn't will fade away. This argument won me over. The other categories were equal