The Instigator
laleona89
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The history of the world is just made of biographies of great men.

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 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,762 times Debate No: 15827
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

laleona89

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate.
I would like to start by the clarifying some terms before we start this debate.
Biography: The story of someone's life.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
By history of the world I'm referring to the history of the world even before men.
I would like for Pro to start this debate because I'm used to start a debate with the support team's argument so that's why I would like for my opponent to start with his argument.
thanks!!!!!
socialpinko

Pro

As my opponent did not define the word 'great' I will take the liberty of defining it here.

Great: (A)wonderful; first-rate; very good(B)notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding[3]

Now all of these definitions of great are mighty subjective. As of yet there is no objective definition of 'great' it is subjective and thus if I believe the men I describe to be great then that guess is as good as anyone elses. I provided this definition simply in the case that I connect the history of the world to men and my opponent raises a problem in that she disagrees on whether or not the men are indeed 'great'.

I would like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate. I will provide an outline of my case in this round however I must point out that as instigator of this debate, Con does have the burden of proof. So my opponent, in order to win, not only must refute my own arguments but must conclusively prove that the history of the world is not simply made up of biographies of great men.

Upon looking at my opponent's source for the word 'biography' the definition which she listed did not appear. Therefore I propose my opponent's unsourced definition be scrapped and we adopt my own definition.

Biography: a written account of another person's life[2]

My, and my opponent's, definition of 'biography' have it describing a specific person's life. Therefore my opponent's definition of history ought to be scrapped as the history of the world before 'men' is wholly irrevelant to this debate. So, in accordance with both my opponents and my own definition of biography I propose that a new definition of history be used.

History: the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race.[1]

I will now outline my basic argument. I believe that all I can do is show examples of pieces of history(in connection with the human race) and show that they are all simply part of greater biographies of great men. Now if we are to use my opponent's definition of 'biography' then all I have to do is make up a story connecting all of history to any number of great men's lives. As long as I can logically connect the specific piece of history with a specific great man then the resolution is affirmed.

If we are to use my own definition of history then I simply have to write down the story(As in on this debate) and this will affirm the resolution. So all I can do in this round is provide an example of human history and show that it was really all part of a larger biography of various great men. I will provide one below.

A.)The American Civil War

The American Ciil War was a war in America which lasted from 1861-1865. Over the course of the war several Southern states attempted secede from the United States. In the end however the North won over the South, thus affirming the power of the federal government over the states. The Civil War was won by the North who were lead by Ulysses S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln. So when making a biography of these two men, the American Civil War logically would be included.

I can provide more examples in the next round but I will now toss the debate back to my opponent.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
laleona89

Con

I totally understand and I agree with your definitions. Sorry if I didn't clarify myself, but I am not that experienced in written debate.

The history of the world is not JUST made by biographies of great men, actually there are a lot of other factors that have contributed to the history of the world. Some of those factors are natural disaster, such as hurricanes, tsunami's like right now in Japan, earthquakes, ice ages and even a whole society, not only great men.
I will use your example of the American Civil War.

The Civil war as you mentioned lasted from 1861-1865, in which several Southern states tried to secede from the US. In here I can rove that this states are not ONLY great men, but instead a whole society made by "great" and average people; yes led by a great men, but by reading the biography of this man you cannot read about how other people live, or how people thought, etc; instead you read about what that "great" man thought and did and just that.

When you said that in the biographies of Ulysess S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln the Civil war would e included, well obviously yes, but your missing that you wouldn't read about the complete Civil War, but instead only what they saw or thought, but not the troops point of view or maybe how the weather affected, nor the geography, etc. I can prove this by giving you the link to Abraham Lincoln's and Ulysses' biography that was posted on the government's web page, which I can reassure you it is a very reliable source.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

As you can now see, it does mention the civil war, but it does not mention how people reacted, or if climate intervened, etc.

No I want to write another short example to prove that History in not JUST made of the biographies of great men.

My example is the Ice Age. I would like my opponent to mention the name of one great man that was part of the Ice Age, that by reading their biography you can read about what happened and why during the ice age. I don't recall there being such.

Thanks again for accepting my Debate.
socialpinko

Pro

I just realized tha part of the resolution has yet to be defined. As so I will do it now.

Man: (A)a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex(B)the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex(C)a human being; person[1]

//"there are a lot of other factors that have contributed to the history of the world. Some of those factors are natural disaster, such as hurricanes, tsunami's like right now in Japan, earthquakes, ice ages and even a whole society, not only great men."//

My opponent has accepted my definitions but then cited examples of history in which natural disasters are the main factors. Of course in my and my opponent's definition of biography, a biography cannot be about natural disasters as a biography is an account of a 'person's' life. An account of a tsunami would not be a biography.

//"In here I can rove that this states are not ONLY great men, but instead a whole society made by "great" and average people; yes led by a great men, but by reading the biography of this man you cannot read about how other people live, or how people thought, etc; instead you read about what that "great" man thought and did and just that."//

As 'greatness' is subjective as I pointed out in the first round, I can simply state that every single person is 'great', albeit in totally different senses. A carpenter, in my opinion, is 'great' at handling wood. A theif is 'great' at stealing. A garbage man is 'great' at picking up trash. This is of course simply in my own opinion, but as 'greatness' is subjective, my opinion is as good as anyone's.

//"When you said that in the biographies of Ulysess S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln the Civil war would e included, well obviously yes, but your missing that you wouldn't read about the complete Civil War, but instead only what they saw or thought"//

An account of the whole Civil War would not be a biography. As my opponent accepted my definitions, a biograhy is:

Biography: a written account of another person's life

//"No I want to write another short example to prove that History in not JUST made of the biographies of great men.
My example is the Ice Age. I would like my opponent to mention the name of one great man that was part of the Ice Age, that by reading their biography you can read about what happened and why during the ice age. I don't recall there being such."//

This example does not agree with my and my opponent's agreed upon definition of 'biography'. Therefore of course it would not be about great men.

My opponent's objective for negating the resolution is incredibly simple. All my opponent must do is show a 'biography, as agrees with our definition, that is not about 'great' 'men' or a 'great' 'man'. If my opponent is unable to produce this evidence, the resolution holds and I win this debate.

I now pass on the debate back to my opponent.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
laleona89

Con

I accept my mistake and I cannot correct it so I agree you should win this one

Sorry!!
socialpinko

Pro

It seems as though my opponent has conceded the resolution and forfeited this debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
laleona89

Con

laleona89 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

My opponent conceded the resolution and then forfeited the last half of the debate. It is or these reasons that I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
laleona89socialpinkoTied
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: con forfeit
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
laleona89socialpinkoTied
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 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: I think Con should not have given in to the silly semantic arguments. He should have won. However, he conceded. con should have said "pass" rather than forfeiting, which loses conduct. But I guess it doesn't matter if you've conceded.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
laleona89socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Verbal Forfiet