The Instigator
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

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...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 28939
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

In the name of God, Most Beneficent, most Merciful

The topic of the debate I start is the morality of our society nowadays.
We see that, most specifically the youth, have no more of ambition.

Ambition is defined by Cambridge Dictionary thus:

-something you want to achieve in your life
-a strong feeling that you want to be successful or powerful

In the early days (referring to the 19th century and earlier) you had to have ambition to have fun.
Drawing is fun, is it not?
Well, not for all, thus one could say. Of course not. It has to be an ambition.

Writing is fun, is it not?
Horseback riding is fun, is it not?
Photographing is fun, is it not?

All of these have to be an ambition...

Since the coming of television and internet, you were not forced to have ambition in order to have fun any longer.
But without this ambition, the whole society falls...

I am so passionate to say, that is the decision was to be for me to make, I would forbid both television and internet over the entire world.

Then change could come...
Magic8000

Con

The problem with Pro’s case is that it’s a big proof by assertion fallacy. Pro hasn’t given a shred of evidence to support his case. People still have the ambition to draw, ride, take pictures, ect.

Pro states

“Since the coming of television and internet, you were not forced to have ambition in order to have fun any longer. But without this ambition, the whole society falls...”

How did TV and internet do this? In order to have fun, you must want to have it first. People still have the ambition to work, watch, and play on TVs and computers.

The debate title is “The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.” What does ambition have to do with morality?

Pro needs more evidence for his claims in order for this debate to continue.


Debate Round No. 1
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for sticking to the etiquette of opening an argument with a word of gratefulness and honour. And meanwhile, I apologize for my irony.

Ambition, Sir, is not just about wanting to have fun. It is about being prepared to put real effort to achieve pleasure.

And what morality has got to do with morality is quite simple. The way of learning good and bad (what morality is all about) is trough experience. What one sees, especially as a child, has an effect upon the way one looks to the world.

I took the lack of ambition as a starting point. People only know success if they have ambitions, many poets and philosophers would indeed agree with me. But you can't have success without morality either.

Please do not accuse me of argumenta ad hominem again, I do not link these two. It is just co-incidence that both lead to the same thing.

Anyway, most of the TV-shows display inappropriate cases of violence, intimate handling an other things one should not see before a certain age, when the morality is already fixed in.
Even, many of those cartoons that appear very innocent, have an indirect or direct effect upon a child's mind. Tom & Jerry, for example, teaches pain, hatred, discrimination, perhaps even racism... Do feel free to oppose.

I do hope, dear rival, that the above will suffice to bring up some arguments from your side. I wish you all the luck and encourage you to forget about my disgraceful language from our last debate.


Peace upon all who read this.
Magic8000

Con

It seems like Pro wants a shared BOP. Apologies, but it wasn’t specified.

Women

Throughout history women were looked at as second class citizens. Nowadays women are accepted as equal. For example, the first country to allow women to vote was New Zealand [1] in 1893. In the 20th century the granting of women suffrage has become widespread [1]. This is a clear moral progression.

Slavery

The age of abolishment began in the 19th century. Abolishment of slavery spread worldwide in the 20th century [2] and abolition is still happening today. Another clear moral progress.

Pro’s Arguments

I wasn’t saying ambition is wanting to have fun, I was saying how could someone have fun without wanting to have it first? I also didn’t ask what morality had to do with morality, I asked what it had to do with ambition.

“People only know success if they have ambitions, many poets and philosophers would indeed agree with me. But you can't have success without morality either.”

What do you mean? This doesn’t link ambition to morality, it just means something that’s required for morality, is also required for ambition. What do you mean by success? Someone could be successful in an immoral business such as hitmen, drug dealers, ect. The link between Pro’s argument and the debate hasn’t been linked together.

“Please do not accuse me of argumenta ad hominem again”
I won’t accuse you of it unless you do it. Your conduct in this debate is much better.
T.V. Violence

The morality of some cartoon makers doesn’t reflect on the overall mortality of all men.

This doesn’t mean all TV viewers accept this kind of stuff. There have been many surveys proving this.


  • A new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 75% of the 1,505 adults polled from March 17-21 would like to see tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content, particularly when children are most likely to be watching; 60% want broadcast TV indecency standards extended to cable TV; and 69% want higher fines for media companies.


  • In a recent (03.20.05) Time Magazine Poll 53 percent of respondents said that they think the FCC should place stricter controls on broadcast-channel shows depicting sex and violence. 68 percent believe the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. 66 percent said there is too much violence on open-air TV, 58 percent said too much cursing and 50 percent said there is too much sexual content on TV. 49 percent say FCC regulation should be extended to cover basic cable.


  • 62% say that sex on TV shows and movies influences kids to have sex when they are too young


  • 77% say there is too much sex before marriage on television


  • 65% say that shows like The Simpsons and Married… With Children encourage kids to disrespect parents.


  • A majority of parents say they are "very" concerned about the amount of sex (60%) and violence (53%) their children are exposed to on TV. After being read arguments on both sides of the issue, nearly two-thirds of parents (63%) say they favor new regulations to limit the amount of sex and violence in TV shows during the early evening hours, when children are most likely to be watching (35% are opposed)


  • In a recent national survey conducted by Nielsen (4/29/04), 78% of American families who had recently been part of the Nielsen 'People Meter' panel wanted more shows 'without profanity or swear words.' "In a national opinion poll conducted for TV Guide (8/2/03), 57% of TV viewers said they 'noticed an increase in offensive material on television lately.'" [3]


Pro’s argument from TV supports my case.


Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

Indeed, I wanted a shared burden of proof, excuse me that I did not make it clear.

Women

I do not agree with Con's statement.

Throughout history women were looked at as second class citizens.

I believe that women were never 'second class' citizens. The only point is that more responsibilities were given to the male gender.
Mostly, the mother is more soft to her children than the father. And for children are in need of softness, the mother is most capable of spending time with the children. Now kids need a awful lot of time, so only being mother would fill al the days of the woman.
If mom goes to work (what is no longer rare these days) and dad goes to work, what will the children do? Hang out? Watch TV? How many kids go to the library when their parents are absent?

Moreover, if a woman is in her menstruation period, it is scientifically proved that her temper gets higher, and she will often have concentration problems. So if a woman is prime minister, for example, and she is so unlucky that an important gathering happens within her period, it'll be hard for her to endure with quality.

Slavery

The abolishing of slavery was indeed a step forward. As well in morality, but then we talk about federal morality.
As you might have noticed, with my continuous arguments of ambition, I rather directed the debate towards individual morality. And most especially with young people. My apologies if I was not clear enough.

Defending of my own arguments

If I say success, I mean moral success. I don't think making much money out of drug dealing is real success.
So to acquire the right morals, you need to have ambition. Speaking the truth is a part of morality.

Why would you speak the truth? There are many reasons. If one does it to please God, it is an ambition. If it is to please your mother, that is ambition. See? There is a link.

Now, ambition => goal.

This can be any goal, and with some people, the goal is to obtain morality. That might be for another reason, as stated above. But the point is, without ambition, no morality.


TV Violence

It certainly does reflect upon the overall morality of men, if every kind of immoral TV broadcast, or modern music, which in most cases promotes immorality too, is widely spread. Everyone is being exposed to such evil. And if I say that morality has gone astray, I do not mean that there are no longer moral men on the earth.
But in general, immorality has taken over the world.

The pivot point of this 'revolution' was mainly with the coming of the TV. Could you give anything to fight that, Sir?

Peace upon all who read this.
Magic8000

Con

Women

Pro says women were never second class citizens. My argument does prove women were not looked at as equal. If women weren’t looked at negatively, why does there have to be Gender-Based Asylum [1]? Pro never goes after my argument, but talks about what he believes to be the woman’s role is. However, his argument assumes that a women must necessarily be a wife, have children, and other views like they are soft. This commits the hasty generalization and straw man fallacy. Even if this was true, it doesn't refute my argument, that there was a moral progression.

A woman's mood during menstrual cycles are completely irrelevant. It doesn’t mean we should treat them poorly.

Slavery

It would also be an individual advancement too. The majority of individuals use to accept slavery, now the majority doesn’t.

Pro’s Arguments

Pro says success is moral success. This clears it up, but it would make his statement “you can't have success without morality” a tautology.

Pro links ambition to morality, but saying if we don’t have ambition we don’t have morality, because we have no ambition to be good. However, this goes into the thing I’ve been saying from the start, there needs to be evidence that people are lacking ambition. Pro’s argument has been nothing but a proof by assertion. Even if it’s proven people are lacking ambition in one area, it doesn’t mean they’re lacking ambition in all areas.


T.V. Violence

Even if everything on TV is immoral, it doesn’t people accept this kind of stuff or let it affect them. Someone could easily watch a simulated murder scene and not let it affect them in any way because they would understand it’s fiction. As I’ve shown in the previous round, a majority of people agree with Pro here, that there’s too much immorality on TV. So, how could it have overtaken the world if a majority agrees with Pro?


Thanks, back to Pro.


[1] http://www.stopvaw.org...

Debate Round No. 3
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

PhileasFoggOfVictoria forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Con

FF extend arguments
Debate Round No. 4
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

PhileasFoggOfVictoria forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Con

Annnnnnnnnnnd FF again.

Q. Why did Zeno of Elea's chicken cross the road?

A. To prove it could never reach the other side.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 3 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Forgive me, dear opponent, that I have forfeited the last rounds.

Not only did I lack time for proper research, but I as well feared that it would be useless.

Congratulations, in mine eyes thou hath yet won.

Which should not mean that we never repeat this debate again, my friend. We shall - as soon as I referenced myself well.

Well done!
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Wow, this is seriously a bold and depressing premise. Creative argument, I'll stay tuned... on the internet, while streaming video.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
The debate itself makes no sense as bladerunner060 pointed out.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
IDK if I will be able to accept. I'm having tech problems with my phone and I use public internet. I'm also little worried I won't be able to finish the first debate I challenged you to.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I see Qutbism being relevant here.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Are you arguing that ambition is inherently more moral?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
PhileasFoggOfVictoriaMagic8000Tied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PhileasFoggOfVictoriaMagic8000Tied
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: FF.