The Instigator
samiam96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lucyalice1989
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

That there is more that unites us than divides us

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
lucyalice1989
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,416 times Debate No: 16538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

samiam96

Pro

First round - Definitions and allocation of points.
Second round - Initial arguments.
Third round - Refutation.

Definition (simplistic)
That in society today, there are more factors that stimulate unity rather than division.

Allocation (for second round)
1. Accepting Diversity and Rejecting Discrimination.
2. The Death of the Stereotype.
3. Leaders and Conformity

Good luck to whoever accepts challenge, looking forward to debating this topic.
lucyalice1989

Con

In society there a more contributing factors to divide us rather than unite us

(1) Legislation and government justification
(2) Generation Y empowerment
(3) Evolving technology
Debate Round No. 1
samiam96

Pro

Definition accepted, but (obviously) I am arguing the opposite...
1. Accepting diversity and rejecting discrimination.
Society has progressed from the hateful chaos that was discrimination. Yes discrimination is still existent, however not to the degree or size that it was before. Our world has realised that differences are a part of life, and that they shape our character, culture and personal identity. In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values, we realise that discrimination is not acceptable and differences are. For example, could you imagine, even as recent as 50 years ago, the uproar if someone was to suggest that gay marriage should be legalised. Being just a little bit different was frowned upon, but we can see today, with the openness of gays, that that is a false allegation about reality. The reality is that we have moved on, society has progressed to be accepting of other cultures, religions, appearances, races, sexualities, and even gender. Conforming to a social expectation...I think not. Trends exist, but we no longer conform. The point I am trying to make is that unity has become the social norm, and in a society that is so accepting it is easy to be united rather than divided, because structured social classes and statuses are now extinct in society.

I'm really sorry but I have some assignments due tomorrow that I have to work on today and tomorrow.
Would i be acceptable for me to continue my last two points in the refutation round, as i will not have time today or tomorrow. (It would be acceptable for you to do half your case in the refutation round as well).
lucyalice1989

Con

I now wish to outline certain points my opponent has made before producing my argument.

My opponent has stated "In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values" however it cannot be spoken for all majority's. Values are a intricate belief systems which include morals. There are different beliefs in different society's, a persons value may vary between cultures and therefore produce a distance or dislike between culture clashes. It can be somewhat different to offer acceptance and friendship to someone who strongly values something one may dislike. This brings me to the point of "confrontation" a state of conflict between two antagonistic forces, creeds, or ideas etc. Confrontation is a everyday part of life displayed between forces, personal and government relations.

My opponent has also stated "structured social classes and statuses are now extinct in society" this statement is on false pretence, structured social classes are necessary and applied even in the government. If we gave all power to the lower socioeconomic we would be in crisis. We are divided into tax codes, entitlements and judged constantly by the educational decisions we make (this is demonstrated in income). If there was no social class, oppression would not exist but their are various oppressed and marginalized people in society.

Given the facts I also believe legislation is creating division in society due to the fact it is designed to create more futuristic problems such as freedom empowerment, this enables childcare owners to offer more freedom and no discipline and with a evolving world whereas it is common for women to work and be independent they are dedicating their children to childcare facilities. This is offering generations to be offered no discipline and therefore disempowering educators and putting the power into children's hands whom are not able to shape or offer themselves reasonable formity. Creating generation Y. Generation Y has value system complications such as less respect for others.

Evolving technology is also creating barriers between people, with more and more cars being driven on roads, road rage occurs. With new televisions being produced lower socialization occurs, money is believed to be needed and people become more self involved as prices rise. Society becomes somewhat divided between dedication in achieving "the latest" rather than the consideration of others. We also have television expectations on what we are expected to be such as skinny models or somewhat famous or popular, this then becomes our drive rather than self worth.

Contention 1:

Legislation and government justification is encouraging social class division.

Contention 2:

Generation Y is now existent and creating education and disciplinary complications. repercussions include generations with low respect and positive input.

Contention 3:

Evolving technology is producing self involved people and shaping or value system for the worst.
Debate Round No. 2
samiam96

Pro

I would firstly like to argue some points provided by my opponent. Then present the remainder of my case (although as I have technically violated my own terms I will keep it concise)
As I stated previously, "In the past, society was rejecting of diversity and conformity reigned, however today we have a different set of values", my opponent has refuted this claiming that this cannot be a generalised term for society, considering the differences in culture between ourselves and others. I would like to rebut this by saying that yes, values are an intricate belief system, but, for the vast majority, acceptance, charity, inclusion and tolerance has been added (or was already apparent) to these values of ours. This is a common feature of society today, as we can see that in most instances, without violence, international or interracial issues can be sorted out. This is attributed partly to the fact that our world has grown up, and mostly because we are accepting cultural differences. Confrontation exists, and is prominent in resolution, touch´┐Ż , however this does not prove that we are influenced to be more divided. In actual fact, it suggests the opposite, that we respect each other enough to speak rationally to each other.

"structured social classes and statuses are now extinct in society". The purpose of this statement was, to show how a generalised assumption about someone according to an obvious, advertised status is not happening today. If anyone looked at any random on the street, they would not be able to tell personal information about them. Their income, marital status, political views or occupation would be a secret. My opponent has claimed that "If we gave all power to the lower socioeconomic class we would be in crisis" This is not only derogatory but also a stereotype. Judgements like these hurt others. The reason why we are "divided" into tax categories is not to be placed into figurative boxes but to be dealt with on a more personal and customised level. Besides, they are not dividing us of judging us, but in fact tailoring their services to be fairer.

"If there was no social class, oppression would not exist" Oppression is not simply, or directly the result of social classes.

The parenting, or supposed lack of, is also not a major or direct cause of a lack of respect in generation Y, and it doesn't end with respect. Yes I agree that gen Y has less respect than older generations, however, Generation Y is probably the most accepting, trusting, and globally aware generation ever. I believe that more than compensates for a manners issue.

The evolution of technology has created globalization, which makes our planet figuratively smaller. figuratively smaller, in regards to communications technology. Anyone could, with the click of a mouse, via skype, talk to a relative or a friend overseas as if they are in the next room. Driving us apart, or bringing us closer?cars and roads have more benefits then detriments in a logistical sense because we are able to travel quicker, further and more comfortably to any place roads can take us. Once again, excuse the pun, we are being driven closer rather than being torn apart.

2. The Death of the Stereotype.
- Assumptions are less common.
- It's ok to be an individual in today's society.
- Labels (Nerds, Jocks, Plastics etc...) don't apply in today's schools.
- Hierarchy, That's ancient, medieval stuff.

3. Leaders and Conformity
- Obama, moved on from racism.
- Julia Gillard, moved on from sexism.
- Democracy not Communism.
- Propaganda
This has been a good debate, I am thankful for the challenge and opportunity. Good luck for the final round.
lucyalice1989

Con

I will now adress points made by my opponent before continuing my argument.

My opponent has stated "for the vast majority, acceptance, charity, inclusion and tolerance has been added (or was already apparent) to these values of ours." We of course have to rely on charity from others due to government finances not being directed towards social issues. Social issues tend to put continous strain on society, we lack social workers and support people which pushes class divisions lower.

my contender stated "If anyone looked at any random on the street, they would not be able to tell personal information about them" my argument is.. "if most people saw a guy who looked all scruffy they would form their own opinion and probably not pay him the time of day." If a young mother is carrying two kids she is often judged. NO they cannot tell but STEREOTYPES are more so evident in the present tenths. The average person forms a opinion on appearence immediately.

Liberal thoughts are running society making it is easier for people to be oppressed, but again I state "If we gave all power to the lower socioeconomic class we would be in economic and social crisis" I am.. however non judgemental and very accepting merely I am just stating a "fact". If the govt was disembarked and all power was given to lower socio people crime would rise, oppression would grow and we would finally come to the point of a global depression. We could however live off the earth and natural resources but currently we are NOT. My opponent also states "If there was no social class, oppression would not exist" no it would not but we would have to have no liberal thinkers and less currency whereas liberal beliefs and income RISE each year.

I wish to prove my theory of "technology". Even if it's annoying to admit it, we are able to have a lifestyle because of politics. The world was once grass, dirt, flowers and untouched sceanery. Man has created industrial and commercial from creation and invention, we have however always had divisions between classes which will continue with more money making ventures.

I do not agree with society being divided but it is. People are opionated, some greedy, some people are dishonest other people are charitable, kind and trusting, some have "bad" values and some have "good". We will always have people at the top of the ladder, they are needed to continue extending the humans intellect e.g funding for profitable technology, law enforcers, government officials to make a educated informed opinion on new bills for the benefit of society.

Theft was not heard of often in our parents generations due to respect, education and supporting happiness rather than money. Lots of people now value "money". In present tenths money is considered more of a necessitie and is the enforcing factor of "social division". We are becoming more liberal rather than natural. my opponent also states "Generation Y is probably the most accepting, trusting, and globally aware generation ever" where this is true, generation Y have less discipline, less respect and are becoming more lazy. which again puts pressure on society.

my opponent also stated "without violence, international or interracial issues can be sorted out" they can within the government but we are beggining to see bullying within schools, oppresed people forming groups and gang incidents. We are DIVIDED into groups whether it be school (nerds, popular), work.. is it just for another human being to run around for another human being just to support their family?. Some people turn to violence to retelliate against being alienated and osterisized by other groups. New groups are also on the rise.

I believe we are complicated beings, rather than being like other animals. We have the ability to summarise, invent and of course have personal opinions and feelings. We are intelligent and are all different, some shall judge and some shall not. As the years go on everything gets more complicated, more commercial and more liberal. This is needed to evolve. To summarise my conclusion.. we are being "divided" rather than united due to the fact of evolving technology (money).. snowballing to government and social class division. We are focusing rather on evolving our man made world rather than our "people".

Contention 1:

Government is enforcing no social decision and only liberal beliefs (focusing on money, rather than people).

Contention 2:

Generation Y (Our next generation with less morals including respect, discipline and non judgement of others).

Contention 3:

technology is becoming a more important factor, we go to work.. earn money, buy technology and do it over and over again (rather to evolve liberal society before happiness).
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by samiam96 5 years ago
samiam96
Thanks, good luck to you too
Yes, society is a hard topic I find as it is so broad and often contradicts itself.
Posted by lucyalice1989 5 years ago
lucyalice1989
Hey thanks for the awesome debate! Society is definitely a difficult subject (interesting tho)... my brain is now sore ha, good luck :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
samiam96lucyalice1989Tied
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 had bop
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
samiam96lucyalice1989Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Close on arguments, would have preferred some support how to define/warrant "more", as this was close 1pt to Con as Pro had the BoP