The Instigator
karan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
K-Dogg
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

To uplift one, thousands are crushed!

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 4 votes the winner is...
K-Dogg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 24431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

karan

Pro

Let me open the debate by first clarifying meanings:
Uplift:[1] to raise; to lift up (eg. her uplifted voice)
[2] morally or spiritually raised.
(reference: http://oxforddictionaries.com...)

On the context of this debate, first meaning suites very well.

Here is my opening argument:

There is a short historical tale. A teacher draws a line on black board with chalk and ask his students to make that drawn line smaller without touching or rubbing it. All students being puzzled started thinking yet no one came with the answer. Finally teacher gave the answer. He took a chalk piece, drew another line bigger than the previous one and automatically the previous line became smaller.

By this short tale, I want to convey a fact. On what basis we use words: big, small, tall? We use these type of words in context of other; as comparisons. There must be something big to say some other thing small!

Similarly, words like uplifted, successful and progressive are also used with respect to others. Thus if one is uplifted then other automatically downfalls or depresses!

See the world around and one will get many examples: A herbivorous is uplifted by eating (downgrading) herbs; the same herbivorous is eaten by carnivorous for his own uplift...and so on!! Even natural food chain is based on this law!

Forests are downgraded to upgrade, uplift the human societies; flour is reduced to increase bread...

So these are some known examples. I will elaborate the topic in second round after the arguments of my opponent. I hope i have opened and described the topic convincingly...
K-Dogg

Con

I would like to say good luck to the opposition in this debate and to hope it can be clean fun and one can be "uplifted" in the voting without anyone's egos being harmed.
Debate Round No. 1
karan

Pro

Well, thanks my opponent...Yet I don't understand why con wasted the round 1 completely even though word limit was 3000! Either he had no clear point to argue with or he was too lazy to type his argument. In both the cases my opponent lost a golden chance to open his argument and opinion. In debate one should be faithful and should pick out time to argue and if the same time is not there then he must not accept the debate challenge...

Any way I respect the rules and regulations of a debate and I will be loyal to it...

Here I am elaborating my argument and I hope my opponent will seriously put his opinion in this round...

Let me come to the topic by first narrating a short incident:
"One evening as usual, I was watering the plants grown in our backyard...The summers were at the peak and that afternoon Sun rained intense photons. Thus it was indeed necessary that I water the plants the same evening. I wet the plants completely. And as I was watering, I myself felt cool and satisfied; feeling how cool the plants be feeling then!

But suddenly, this coolness of mine turned to perspiration, regrets and sadness! Below one plant there were burrows of ants and it seemed a whole new kingdom had been established by them. I felt sad because on that kingdom a devil was going to shower floods..That devil was I, myself! I had no option! To uplift, to water the plants, I had to rain water and destruct the whole ant kingdom located near its roots!

I started watering the plant. The roots were drinking water so rapidly that constantly for a minute I had to supply water on them. I could feel them absorbing water. But the ant kingdom was destroyed. A huge flood had came in their kingdom. I saw many ants running for their lives taking their eggs on their head! So even I was destroying their maternity home!

Though the plant got a new life, yet thousands of ants sacrificed their lives!!!"

..................This small but effective incident literally pained my heart asking,"is it true, to uplift one thousands are crushed?" And sadly my brain replied "yes it is!"

Everything is uplifted, upgraded by literally downgrading something, isn't it?

Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest literally proves the key factor of existence in this world...The one who is fit, who survives is uplifted and the one unfit depletes!

Take any incident, any place and any one...One thing is reduced to increase another. In office promotion of one indirectly discredit five! In schools and colleges, one uplift rank by indirectly pulling down the existed ranker!

"Hundred of golden (rotten) leaves fall so that new green leaves can grow!"

Thus here I conclude my second round...I hope I have made my argument clear and also my opponent will too clarify his opinion more elaborately...
K-Dogg

Con

I apologize for my misreading negligence. Regardless you have lost already. Using your loss definition of uplift if I hold a little girl up on my shoulders, not I nor thousands will be crushed. If I uplift a poor orphan metaphorically by giving him cash I won't be crushed as I feel a point of happiness in a good deed while he is financially better off.

The main problem with your argumentation of downgrading is that you put it all In a vacuum without considering the other factors that could make them better off in the end either morally or even perhaps financially/physically.

Let's say I kicked you out of your precious garden and you found a new one that you liked more. We turned out to be both content and equal in terms of garden ownership. Now does this downgrade us and those who do not have gardens? Not at all. The point is that they were never participating in this system in the first place and to subject them to it is morally unjust. We must indeed keep this discussion relative, but not too relative obviously. In the end we cannot either assume they have been downgraded as we don't have maximum knowledge of their standing and why something like a garden ownership has a utility advantage over their other devices.

In a Kritik of this resolution i reject this framework as we are rejecting individuality in favor of logically flawed relativism that you are showing. I am arguing for our admittance that these upgrades and downgrades are only based upon our personal biases and that is entirely why you can't affirm as you would be disrespecting individuality and being morally unjust.

With no doubt I negate.
Debate Round No. 2
karan

Pro

Firstly I thank con to attend round 2 actively.
Coming to the topic: It is important to resolve some of the oppositions which con have raised.

With reference to the definition of uplift (I mentioned in R1), con is arguing that " If any one uplift a little girl on his shoulders no one will be crushed" Well con, Here on context of the topic, the word 'uplift' not at all mean to raise or lift some one physically. With respect to the topic this word means raising one's standard of living, one's achievements, financial conditions etc. So It is baseless argument of con of having physical lifting of something or someone do not crush thousands.

Moving ahead, now my opponent is on correct track and argues about raising a poor financially. It is true that the poor will be uplifted and you will rather be pleased nor crushed morally. I want to answer this opposition with an example:
I hope con knows Newton's third law: Action and reaction are always supplementary yet in opposite direction. Here if one slaps you is action then you slap him back is scientifically not the reaction. Reaction is the amount of force felt by the slapper when slapping you. SIMILARLY, though morally you felt happy by uplifting a poor yet you lost some penny from your bank balance. This what actually should be seen in practical. I hope my opponent also know that word 'crush' too is used as slang. Here crush means any kind of depletion, decrement or degradation. In your example of raising poor, thousands of pennies were decreased from your account. So morally you didn't get 'crush' yet you have to agree that your bank account has less money then before.So this example of con is also baseless.

Next argument of con is: I am rejecting individuality in favor of logically flawed relativism. I am being excessively relative and morally unjust. I too agree. Yet con should understand that in debate the topic can never be discussed at individual levels. No doubts, there may be differences at individual levels yet we have to discuss it as a whole with good reasoning and logical illustrations. You may know that lawyers debate in courtroom and sometimes they too have to keep aside moral. Debate requires logical reasoning. There should be a firm base on which one's argument stands. So con's opposition of me to be seeing and describing topic as a whole and not at individuality levels too is baseless. To be morally just in debate is against debate's moral!

So I hope I have responded to almost all the opposition of my opponent.

As this is last round, I wont put any new argument but conclude here by short listing my previous arguments:
1 Nature too believe in this law as one's upliftment is dependent on other's lives.
2 Present era is competitive one where literal race is seen. Here upliftment of one crush others in any form. (in education, financially, ethically etc)
THUS
Upliftment in any sector causes declination of others in small or large amount.

IF ONE WINS IN DEBATE OTHER LOSES ITSELF...
K-Dogg

Con

It is time to end this debate with K-Dogg's final gambit (refutation of baselessness).

Voting Issues

1. First off to claim that to be morally just in debate is against the reasoning of debate's morals is unfortunately for you wrong and unwarranted. You must not be familiar with Lincoln-Douglas style debate which is about Morals totally. Also you fail to understand that Morally Just is one of the biggest portions of philosophy which is the category of debate.

2. My Opponent, regardless of my facetiousness didn't fully elaborate the definition of "uplift" so it is to be up to strident interpretation regardless of your true intentions in this debate. The least that can happen is a tie in conduct voting (loss for me by not responding first and loss for you by not explaining the resolution fully).

3. Finally you admit to you being morally unjust to chosing logically flawed relativism to individualistic tendencies. You argue that Logic is not a factor in being morally just. That is the exact opposite. Our basis in morals are our basis in logic. We as mortals have absolutely no possible way of conceiving absolute knowledge. It is that paradoxical scenario of do our neighbors have a possible garden or not (and how can we say we absolutely know they do or don't) that renders your examples are the baseless ones. To affirm this resolution is embark on a dangerous LOGICALLY FLAWED relativism. That is why the voter must negate.

4. It is ultimately our duty to accept universal individualism (the acceptance of a person as they are without our own judging/upgrade-downgrade systems) and let them evaluate themselves without our interference. To accept my opponent's framework doesn't comply with the very value he holds greatest, Logic. It is ultimately more logical that we as mortals are not equiped to judge others and that is why my opponent's own value negates the resolution

5. Thank you to Karan for a very interesting and mind provoking debate. I hope and wish you best wishes to all your other debates and other endeavours.

With that said it is Point 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and Won.
You must Negate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by K-Dogg 5 years ago
K-Dogg
Not really relevant (My second post) to the debate but Yes I am saying Humans are immoral in the premise of what they do. Although there are possibilities for that original premise to be overturned with utilitarian benefits perhaps
Posted by K-Dogg 5 years ago
K-Dogg
Premise: Morals are based upon Logical Reasoning
Truth: Knowledge is not absolute
The system of upgrading/downgrading is flawed because it is based upon non absolute knowledge.
Such scenarios can create stereotypes and other adverse effects (i.e. where a lot of racism and class biases can arise.)
To accept Resolution is to go upon flawed reasoning
To accept flawed reason is to act illogical
To be illogical is to be morally unjust
Morally Unjust under logic's blanket cannot Affirm.
Posted by karan 5 years ago
karan
well, in last concluding round, con is disagreeing that logical reasoning is not as required as the morals in a philosophical debate...I think i must start a new debate for this topic...anyways, i agree that i had not made the meanings clear in first round but after the arguments of con i made them more clear..yet i thought the slang will be understood by con and so i did not mention in round 1... after all you cannot interpret all the words as their meaning: if i say "apple of one's eye" what other's will interpret? there is apple in eye? of course no! its meaning is understood...the words don t carry their actual meaning...and no one needs clarification for the same..
Posted by karan 5 years ago
karan
thanks vmpire321, i m yet not a professional in debate and still a learner, your advice matter to me...thanx
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
@Karan

generally, the first round of a debate is reserved for "acceptance" or just accepting the debate/rules.

Most people as the instigator (you) wouldn't want to post arguments yet, since it gives your opponent an extended amount of time to form a case. Hence, people generally like to use the first round as only acceptance to keep the debate fair.
Posted by K-Dogg 5 years ago
K-Dogg
lol debate
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
karanK-DoggTied
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: Con successfully provided scenarios where the uplifting of one does not necessarily constitute the detriment of others.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
karanK-DoggTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition of uplift and crush were established after Con made arguments. The definitions are Pro's and not accurate by any means. Pro did not carry BOP of resolution and did not refute Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
karanK-DoggTied
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: Though Con missed several important points, I feel he still won because Pro didn't show that in every case of someone being uplifted, thousands of others are crushed. Some may be crushed, but not thousands in every case.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
karanK-DoggTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that some values are relative. Or maybe that all values are relative, who knows? Con's job, if he wanted to take this debate, was to show something absolutely tall, up, rich, or big. Some absolute value. Con did not do this, but wants us to vote against Pro because Con has finally reread the opening post, and doesn't like the topic. Victory: Pro