The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Niwsa
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Niwsa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,390 times Debate No: 28004
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

I support all sins. I think you need all of them to get far in life to some degree (obviously excess of anything at all is a bad thing).

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.


You need Pride to have confidence.

You need Envy to motivate you to succeed in life.

You need Gluttony to not lose out in a situation where many are gaining from resources.

You need Lust if you want to have a kid with a person and not a test tube baby.

You need Anger to help you when others try to intimidate or overpower you.

[ESPECIALLY IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS]

You need Greed to want anything in life.

You need to be a Sloth when you're supposed to be resting, the constant fear of laziness causes workaholism and is VERY detremental to health and wellbeing.
Niwsa

Con

"The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The free dictionary defines portray as either

1. To depict or represent pictorially; make a picture of.
2. To depict or describe in words.
3. To represent dramatically, as on the stage.

I won't play semantics in this debate and will instead assume that my opponent is saying that when they are not in excess, the Seven Deadly Sins are essential, as such I will prove that the Seven Deadly Sins are not essential to humans "to get far in life to some degree".

If I can show that any of the Seven Deadly Sins are not required "to get far in life to some degree", then I will win this debate.

I contend that you do not need anger in order to get far in life.

My opponent stated that you need Anger to help you when others try to intimidate or overpower you.

"Especially in abusive relationships"

Anger is not required for success, if someone is trying to intimidate or overpower you, you can use your intelligence to outsmart them or otherwise convince them in order to defuse the situation. If someone is physically threatening you, you need not become angry to repell them, you need only to act in your own interests and safety.

I have shown that Anger is not required for success in life.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

Do you think intelligence helps? Is that why you think usually the highest IQ nerds are the ones bullied and trampled on in schooling life? Please. It all comes down to how IRRATIONAL and UNINTELLIGENT one can become to think they are superior and dominating over an opponent. The whole concept of martial arts is to use anger. The dea is that if you vent while trainign you will be calmer while not. Anger is needed anywhere in life that there is confrontation. Somethign as simple as a big guy pushing infrotn fo you int he queue. You can't push him, he is stronger, you can't fight him, he will win, you msu tinstead use fury and rage to shout your head off and not give in to this threats, you will push him to the limit and if he loses it well theny ou'll end up in hospital and he in prison, truth of life is the angry ultimately win. If he kills you then he clearly has not been using the sin of pride whereby he forgot that whatever he does might ruin his reputation and status. AS logn at all 7 sins are exprienced at the same time you will get far in life.
Niwsa

Con

My opponent in the previous round has cited various situations in which he thinks Anger is necessary for success.

He states that the whole concept of martial arts is to use anger, he does not cite this statement and it is therefore unwarranted, also, what does this have to do with success or getting far in life?

He cites a situation in which a "big guy" is "pushing infrotn fo you int he queue", and states that you

"can't push him, he is stronger, you can't fight him, he will win, you msu tinstead use fury and rage to shout your head off..."

My opponent here is asserting that you need Anger in this situation, not only has he not proven how Anger in this situation will contribute to success or betterment in life, Anger is unnesecary.

You can calmly call out the person who is pushing in front of you and have them removed by whatever authority figure is present. If there is none present you don't need necessarily need to use Anger to get your way anyways.

My opponent also states that "you will push him to the limit and if he loses it well then you'll end up in the hospital and he in prison."

My opponent seems to be saying that pushing him to the limit is

1. unexcessive Anger

and

2. essential

How is ending up in the hospital essential, or conducive to success?

My opponent has not clearly demonstrated how unexcessive Anger is essential.

I have successfully refuted my opponents arguments thus far.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

IF you are not angry and allow others to asert themselves over you you will end up a pu$$y like a little girl in a world of big wolves you MUST show you are the alpha male/female you must!
Niwsa

Con

My opponent is again making baseless assertions,

stating that "you MUST show you are the alpha male/female you must!"

without showing why.

He does say that "you will end up a pu$$y like a little girl in a world of big wolves"

without showing why someone who does not have unexcessive Anger will end up this way.

I extend my arguments.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

For goodness' sake I love how you fail to attack the other six. fine.

Let me once and for all destroy you.

Anger is a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility http://oxforddictionaries.com...

WIthout this you would never be annoyed at enyone whether it be an oppressive government, abusive boss, intimidating co-worker or your own partner. You wouldn't be able to discipline chldren since there'd be no sense of emotional displeasure when they did 'wrong' or 'right' since this is only achieve through annoyance at the 'wrong'. In fact you might as well kiss any sense of identity goodbye because others will be angrier than youand intimidate you left right and centre.
Niwsa

Con

My opponent has defined Anger as a strong feeling of annoyance displeasure or hostility.

He has also made the following assertions

"WIthout this you would never be annoyed at enyone..."

This is untrue, you do not require a "strong feeling" of something to still have that feeling. Strong annoyance is not required to be annoyed.

You would still be able to discipline children since you would still have a feeling of annoyance and displeasure, just not one that qualifies as Anger. In fact I posit that good discipline does not incorporate a show of anger, it instead punishes a bad action with a negative feedback without over-reacting with Anger. The discipline can still be prompted by annoyance and displeasure, it need not be prompted by Anger.

Finally, my opponent says someone's identity will be lost if others are angrier than them and intimidate them.

He does not state how the relative Anger of others translates to intimidation. Just because someone is angrier than you does not mean they will intimidate you, or even that you will lose your identity.

I have refuted my opponents arguments.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

I said not in excess so your point about 'too much annoyance' being bad is true. You need strength of anger to push others out of your way. If peopel want to step on your toes to rise the top of the corporation you work in, you mst be ready to rip their fott off your toes and step on theirs. This is metaphorically the basis of war (without world war two we'd nto have computers, Thanks Alan Turing). You NEED ANGER it is HUMAN NATURE to be aggressive and destructive at times because if not you are just another pu$$y that's all goobye I win.
Niwsa

Con

I said not in excess so your point about 'too much annoyance' being bad is true."

My opponent has conceded this point.

"If peopel want to step on your toes to rise the top of the corporation you work in, you mst be ready to rip their fott off your toes and step on theirs."

I think what my opponent is saying is that if people are willing to harm you to get ahead, then you must be ready to harm them in return to get ahead.

What does this have to do with the Deadly Sin of Anger? Non excessive Anger is unnecessary to work to get ahead, if someone is metaphorically stepping on your toes you can metaphorically step on theirs without actually exhibiting any Anger at all.

If someone is literally stepping on your toes, you can calmly do whatever is required to remove their foot from your toes, and, if necessary, place your foot on their toes in retaliation, without exhibiting Anger, thereby "getting ahead".

My opponents war statement about computers has not been adequately connected to success, getting ahead, or anger.

Additionally, even without the loss of life, bloodshed, suffering and widespread destruction that is associated with World War II, humans may still have developed the computer. The statement "without world war two we'd nto have computers" is therefore unwarranted.

Human nature is irrelevant to success and the premise of this debate.

I have definitively refuted my opponents arguments and proven that the 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess are not essential.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
Martial arts are not fueled by anger but with justice to do what is right and good for all.
Posted by 614gov 4 years ago
614gov
Both of you started strong but i wish you 2 would have brought more of the other sins into the debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) Picture of a "full retard" as PRO's avatar = negative conduct points.
2) Both of you need a spell check, but PRO needs one a LOT MORE.
3) PRO's round #3 showed why Anger is a bad thing.
4) CON's round #4 showed how you can "use your intelligence to outsmart them," instead of anger.
5) CON was pro, PRO was...angry.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
can't be arsed
Posted by Niwsa 4 years ago
Niwsa
Sorry what do you mean when you say cba? I know s/g is spelling/grammar but what is cba? Thanks.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
cba with the s/g vote.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
RationalMadmanNiwsaTied
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 really did not articulate, well, why anger is necessary, and Con provided a number of scenarios where anger is not necessary and could even be counter-productive.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
RationalMadmanNiwsaTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even really debate. He was just rude, while con was trying to have a real debate about this, and it showed in the superiority of his arguments..
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
RationalMadmanNiwsaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment. iamnotwhoiam you are a sick man lol
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
RationalMadmanNiwsaTied
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: As much as I loved Pro's round 3 argument, Con made a plausible case that anger is not necessary for success.