The Instigator
Comrade_Ulyanov
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Best (Insert Object Here) Can not be determined.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 994 times Debate No: 12526
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Comrade_Ulyanov

Pro

My title might be confusing, but here I will explain it. The best person/object/place/etc cannot be determined. I wish the con, whomever it may be, good luck in this debate.
_______________________________________________________________________
Argument:
I always noticed how people judge their opinions, sometimes unsupportable, to say that something is the best of all others.
Some examples are:
"Bob Marley is the best music artist ever" Well...this could be supported by me..but I never say that he was the best of everyone.
"America is the best country in the world".
I oppose this one because it is impossible to judge this. Not to start another debate, but you can always find a country with something better than another.

I will respond in my supported opinions of my debate opponent is, and I hope this is a good debate- it was just something I thought about, and I think it is a good debate idea.
Danielle

Con

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate :)

Pro has cited two main contentions in support of his argument --

1. People Have Different Standards Of Judging

Suppose Pro and I were judges of a music competition. I might judge one act better because I preferred their drums, while Pro may have judged another act better because he preferred their guitar. Or, even if Pro and I were both judging on the basis of drums, I might simply prefer one act's drums more than Pro does. While this is all true (that people have different preferences and standards), it does not mean that certain standards of judging cannot be negotiated upon. Even if there are (and probably will be some variations in tastes), at the end of any comparison there can still be a clear winner.

2. You Can Always Find Something With A Better Quality

This is another statement that can be true. For instance, while I might proclaim California to be the best state because of it's beautiful weather, one might be able to say that Vermont has even more (albeit different) beauty with the change of their seasons. Still, as I said with the first point, it is possible to create standards and then judge things in comparison to the standards you have agreed to.

Here's an example: Suppose I was trying to judge who the best basketball player was in the NBA. I could say that the factors for judging are overall most points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals. Suppose Kobe had the most points, LeBron had 2nd most, and D-wade had 3rd most. Now supposed LeBron dominated 3 of the other categories and D-wade only dominated 1 of the categories. Overall I'd say that LeBron was the best player in the NBA. Even though there was someone with more (better) of something than LeBron (points) doesn't mean that considering all of the standards and factors that LeBron can't win. (Note: This scenario was a hypothetical :P ).

To clarify my case, I'll present another example. Suppose we were trying to judge who the best team was in the 2010 World Cup. Clearly there are going to be various opinions, and each team has their various strong points. However suppose our agreed upon standards were number of games won, number of goals scored, number of successful tackles, best accuracy, etc. If one team clearly dominates many of these categories, then how can you say a "best" cannot be determined when one dominates the agreed upon standards for judging?

Another thing - Pro assumes that EVERYONE has to be in agreement about something in order for a "best" to be determined. However, that commits the bare assertion fallacy - assuming something to be true just because it says it's true. Has this notion been defended by my opponent? I'd like for him to expand. That said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent. I reserve the right to bring up any new arguments I deem necessary in the next around if need-be. Thanks again, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Comrade_Ulyanov

Pro

Responses:

1. People Have Different Standards Of Judging"
I mean not to deny this fact. People have different standards of judgment just as much as they have different standards of life, or beliefs. Again, as I pointed out on my first round, that this should be somewhat realistic, or supported. Let me should an example. Lets say I am talking to this person on the streets. This person is a very patriotic person, and believes that no country can beat Jamaica. But, this person has no supported information to show this. I tell the person a few things that deny that fact (No offence intended to Jamaicans, I just needed an example, there is nothing wrong with the nation). I have nothing wrong with this fact, and was not was I pointing to.
Some people judge because they have this thing called double standard. For example, in a family, there may have different standards to a son, rather than another set of standards of a daughter.

"...at the end of any comparison there can still be a clear winner"
Maybe in some comparisons, but not most. For example, unless there is a magical perfect world country, then the best country can not be clear, or determined. Although you could possible make a list of best countries of certain categories, a list just named "Best Nations" can never be possible. This could be the same with musicians. For example, you could determine who sold the most album. But you could not determined who was the most influential musicians, or the best singer.

2. "...You Can Always Find Something With A Better Quality"
This statement is true, generally. In most cases, you with find a better thing better then the one before. My argument here is that nothing can be the best with everything, just common sense. Not anytime soon will we find anything of flawless proportions. If we do, I will be shocked.

"...I might proclaim California to be the best state because of it's beautiful weather, one might be able to say that Vermont has even more (albeit different) beauty..."

This is a matter of a person's opinion. Each state is beautiful in different ways. For example. California may have beautiful cities and beaches. As Vermont may have beautiful forests and small towns. But, there is no way to compare which state is better in beauty. Doing so would only be opinion, there is no way to prove a fact in that.

"...Pro assumes that EVERYONE has to be in agreement about something in order for a "best" to be determined. However, that commits the bare assertion fallacy - assuming something to be true just because it says it's true"

I never said that everyone had to argue in order to achieve a "best". My point in this debate was that a best cannot be determined, because it is a matter of opinion. Everyone standards are morals are different. There is a term that I think says a lot about this matter.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" ~ Buddha.
This is basically saying no matter were you have got the information about something, do not believe it unless you have experienced it, and completely know it is true.

Since I have run out of ideas to continue my argument at this time, I will end and continue my argument next round. Good luck!
Danielle

Con

In response to the fact that people have different standards of judging, Pro presents us with an example: Suppose one argued that Jamaica was the best country, but because someone pointed out flaws with Jamaica, they argued against this declaration (that Jamaica was the best). Well, simply because Jamaica (or any nation) has flaws does not mean that it can't be the "best." Once again, if standards are pre-determined and the judges or majority of judges agree on standards, then one can still be the best even if they are not perfect. So, Pro's statement "unless there is a magical perfect world country, then the best country can not be clear, or determined" is false. Perfect is near impossible and yet there can still be the 'best' of something. The 'best' would presumably be that with least flaws.

Pro brings up another argument -- that standards can measure certain things (i.e. most record sales) but could not measure other things like influence or taste. However, anything can be debated. Even if one valued or described "influence" in numerable ways, there could still be one contender that outperformed in every positive way using the various interpretations. Again, there is no proof that (a) someone will always reject a clear winner; (b) even if there was always someone dissenting from the majority opinion, it does not mean that there was still not an objective best. For instance, if you believe in an objective moral or reality system, it's true that some people reject the notion of your objective opinion. However, just because they do not agree with you does not mean that you are wrong. I'm hoping this analogy is making sense :)

Pro continues by clarifying his argument - "My argument here is that nothing can be the best with everything, just common sense. Not anytime soon will we find anything of flawless proportions." So far in this round, I have clarified that there has been no proof that something cannot be the best, and that flaws do not mean something cannot be the best. Here's another example. Suppose we were comparing the Red Sox to the Yankees, and in order to determine the best team of the last 5 decades we seek to measure things like win percentage, championships, star players and revenue. Now, I can prove that the Yankees bests the RS in all of those areas, objectively. However you might still think that the RS are the better team (despite their many flaws). Just because you disagree that the Yankees are the best does not mean that the Yankees are not the best.

Again, Pro re-caps his case -- "But, there is no way to compare which state is better in beauty. Doing so would only be opinion, there is no way to prove a fact in that... My point in this debate was that a best cannot be determined, because it is a matter of opinion. Everyone standards are morals are different..." Once again, I feel like I have adequately explained how just because opinions may differ does not prove that there is no "best." Here's another example - suppose we're judging the fastest runner, or the tallest man. We can have people race, and there can be an objective winner (fastest runner). If we measured every man (theoretically) and one was clearly the "best" (tallest) then we've found the best of something. If you're looking for the most fuel efficient car, it's true that different cars have their pros and cons in various contributions to the environment. However, if you measure fuel emissions, then at the end of the day there can be a more fuel efficient (utilizing fuel to the maximum level) car which means they are the best. Pro must argue against this standard in reality.

And finally, Pro notes, "This is basically saying no matter were you have got the information about something, do not believe it unless you have experienced it, and completely know it is true." Well, this epistemic declaration seemingly comes completely out of nowhere pretty much lol... However, I disagree with this anyway. First of all, how can one be sure they are actually experiencing something? Under a fever once, my younger brother hallucinated ("experienced") being on the playground when he was really lying in bed. I experienced something similar under the influence of mushrooms (haha). Point being - experience is relative, so doesn't this contradict Pro's argument? And what does this have to do with being the "best" of things anyway? I might have a good experience in Italy but you might have a bad experience. Does that mean Italy is not the best country for authentic Italian food?

Anyway, since I have just 5 minutes to submit this (I forgot we only have 48 hours to submit rounds - whoops) I'll end this here for now. I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttal and re-capping the arguments in the next round. Thanks again and good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Comrade_Ulyanov

Pro

Comrade_Ulyanov forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Hmm. My opponent had been consistently online (I checked) yet decided not to post a final argument. As such, please extend all of my contentions throughout R3. Thanks and good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Comrade_Ulyanov 6 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
My profile may had said I was online, but I have not shut my computer down or touched it in a long time. I had no access to the internet due to the fact I was traveling for a few days. I am sorry. Wish I could have posted.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Me too - I argued my round kinda simply because I don't think this is going to become some deep epistemic debate :P
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I was expecting an epistemological argument from Pro that we can not know value.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Osiris 6 years ago
Osiris
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by evergreen9375 6 years ago
evergreen9375
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 6 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Comrade_UlyanovDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07