The Instigator
Poe-vahkiin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nac
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Tragic events are just that, but are also necessary

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...
Nac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 72656
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Poe-vahkiin

Pro

Tragic events are saddening, but are necessary to keep balance to everyday life.First round is acceptance.
Nac

Con

I accept this debate.

As I accept, I believe we need to establish certain rules before we begin arguing.

Burden of Proof is on the pro, since none was established originally. As well, this statement is posed in terms of a universal, a grand sweeping statement of the human condition. As such, this should receive this level of substantiation.

Necessary: absolutely needed

Tragic: regrettably serious or unpleasant

Definitions were obtained from Merriam-Webster.

If any of these conditions are unfavorable, please challenge them.

I thank Pro for posing such an interesting debate. I hope this will be fun for us all
Debate Round No. 1
Poe-vahkiin

Pro

Though defining an opponent's terms is distasteful and almost insulting, I hope to have an interesting debate.
I believe that as long as there is, and there always will be, evil, there will and must be as much of it as there is good. Take the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Though there were many hardships, it was, on a larger scale, beneficial. These attacks showed us that the threats that were posed upon us were more severe than we had thought, and we acted accordingly. Tragedies of this scale are crucial to the balance of society, and life itself. It helps keep humans 'in check', and can allow us to learn from past mistakes.
Nac

Con

I apologize if my conduct was received in a negative light by the Pro side. I simply wished to ensure we had a consensus as to what our terms meant to avoid equivocation and ambiguity. I have no intention of insulting my opponent. Merely to clarify what we are debating. However, if voters are unconvinced that I bore no ill will, by all means, penalize me for improper conduct.

With the word necessary implying an absolute, as per the definition which has not been contested, the existence of alternative must be absent. If something is true in all cases, there must be no case in which said statement is not true.

This signifies the necessity to show how tragedy is required in any way shape or form.

Does this condition exist?

I will use the possible methods in which tragedy is useful, in order to see if none have other solutions.

1. Shifting perspective

Tragedy is useful in altering perspectives by providing empirical data for observers and researchers in furthering human knowledge. However, the practice of psychology can lead to this deeper understanding as well(1). Through the careful study of individuals with noticeable mental disorders, the nature of these disorders could be ascertained without tragedy.

2. Raising awareness

Tragedy can help to alarm society to sordid issues. However, awareness can be raised merely through testimony from those with difficulties or their loved ones or through the involvement of psychiatry or loved ones when a reason for concern(2) is shown. Tragedy is unnecessary here as well.

3. Valuable Lessons

Tragedy can teach us many lessons which can be put to good use, such as informing us as to the necessity of many of the studies mentioned previously. However, it can not be used even here, as philosophy predates them all and, as the study of personal views, can be drawn upon to explain many esoteric worldviews, such as anti-natalism.

With this, I have removed many classic objections from the table. If my opponent wishes to give other reasons which would create this necessity, he is welcome to.

From what I have gathered through composing this list, tragedy is an occurrence which happens when society overlooks details. This implies that tragedy is only necessary with a government riddled with flaws, needing desperately to change, and with only those willing to cause massive destruction are they able to open their eyes. However, this is by no means inescapable. The fields of study which I have provided above show how we can circumvent dilemmas with thought. They have no absolute necessity

My constructive speech has now concluded, and I now pass the baton to my opponent. As per debate rules, I have not attacked his case, as the second post is generally not meant to allow any sort of rebuttals.

Again, I apologize for my faux pas from earlier.

Sources:

(1) http://www.sciencedirect.com...

(2) http://www.acolumbinesite.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Poe-vahkiin

Pro

Poe-vahkiin forfeited this round.
Nac

Con

I will allow for my argument to stand for this round, since I do not wish to take advantage of this forfeiture. It seems distasteful to me personally, as I am oblivious as to its cause. Therefore, I will not bolster my own case.

However, I do wish to debunk my opponent's argument, as this is the first time I have had the chance. I am unsure as to the rules for forfeiture, but halting a case because of this seems insufficient to me.

My opponent has used 9/11 as an example of how tragedy can be used effectively, but has not shown how it was the only way to achieve this end, which, as I established earlier, is the bar the resolution sets.

This end could be achieved by carefully observing the individuals, sending them to have a psychological study done on the men who would hijack the planes as part of a test to ensure they were mentally sound, which, in a position where the lives of numerous people could rest in their hands, should be seen as compulsory. Avoiding this tragedy and achieving the same result could be accomplished with a little foresight.
Debate Round No. 3
Poe-vahkiin

Pro

Tragedy is necessary for many reasons, one large one is the following; catastrophic events are not only wake up calls for those that witness it, but also serve as a reminder that tragedy is inevitable, and we will never be able to stop it. However, we can use the past, and learn from these events to prevent ourselves from suffering from a certain mishap twice. Pain is inevitable,even when humans are not in the picture. There will always be balance, for every grand success there is a dramatic failure, for every sunny day there is a rainy one. It is up to us to learn from this, or allow these destructive forces to consume us. We cannot stop it all, but we can stop it from happening twice before a new evil needs attention, the choice is yours.
Nac

Con

Before I respond to my opponent's conclusion, I need to address the arguments that were untouched by pro.

Pro did not contest my definitions, my establishment of who the burden of proof lies on, my rebuttal, or my constructive. As per debate rules, this implies consent to each of these claims, and allows for me to use all of these claims as commonly accepted knowledge, since no attempt to dispute this was made.

My opponent's conclusion can be simplified into three basic claims:

1. Tragedy can serve as a wake-up call.
2. Tragedy is inevitable.
3. Tragedy can remind us of its inevitability.

However, each of these claims has a significant flaw.

1 was addressed in my constructive speech as point #2, which, was consented to in the aforementioned way. This means he does not contest to the logic I proposed, meaning his assertion holds no water. If someone pays close attention to these cases, a wakeup call is unnecessary. This is the reasoning I am referring to here.

2 needs to be proven, as my opponent accepts that burden of proof. He has not met that burden, insufficiently supporting his case. Tragedy could be removed in the future, which is an alternative which must be disproven for his claim to be held.

However, in the interest of fortifying my bastion, I will also provide a response to this claim with the assumption that it is proven.

The only thing that can be implied from this is that it will happen . This can not be directly linked to necessity, as sociopathy, rape, and psychopathy will also happen, yet few would claim they serve any purpose, let alone are required to fulfill that purpose. Thus, the correlation can not be drawn.

3 falls into the same category as my list in constructive, as a tragedy is not required for this. If a would-be tragic event, such as a school shooting being stopped before a causality is created, were to occur, it would lead to that same end, rendering a tragic event useless. On a side note, just to remove this from the table, this scenario is not a tragic event, since its premature end would elicit happiness, which does not fit with the definition.

The rest of his conclusion shows that tragic events can be useful. However, as I established previously this does not meet the burden established by the resolution. The constructive speech showed how no alternatives to mee this same end could be used.

Conclusion: Because my opponent has not met his burden of proof, did not attack my case, and has no points remaining after my rebuttal above, I urge a con vote.

I thank my opponent for this debate. The topic was filled with profound depth and was an exceedingly enjoyable idea.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Nac 2 years ago
Nac
Out of curiosity, why did you make the voting period this long?
Posted by Nac 2 years ago
Nac
It ensures the two debaters are not just assuming the other has the same definition.

I define atheism as a lack of belief that a or multiple gods exist. However, I have seen many people define it as a belief that a or multiple gods don't exist. Defining the terms as we begin ensures we both have the exact same understanding of what the resolution means, and are not talking past each other the entire time.
Posted by Poe-vahkiin 2 years ago
Poe-vahkiin
That1User

conduct: the manner in which a person behaves
mutual: held in common by two or more parties
define: state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of

This is completely unnecessary, as those who read the terms and do not understand the meaning can research the definitions themselves.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
You're welcome! I hope you find more success here than you did in LD.
Posted by Nac 2 years ago
Nac
Thank you!

I have done some LD Debate before I came on to the site, but my track record was exceptionally poor.
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Wow con, your case against the resolution is great for your first debate. I'm impressed!
Posted by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
Pro, here on ddo, it is acceptable conduct for the contender (con), to define terms in the 1st round if the instigator (you), does not do so. As con says, terms are defined in round 1 so there is a mutual understanding of what the sides are debating. If the terms are not defined in Round 1, then it is likely that the rest of the debate will be used up arguing what each side means by the term.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
Poe-vahkiinNacTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con uses sources, unlike pro, and points out that tragedies are not always necessary especially in cases where psychology and re- mending [comforting the people about the tragedy]. Pro also gave up on his initial case and tried to move on, but firstly pro did not fulfill his mere assertions of how tragedies are unstoppable and HAVE to happen, and secondly con pointed out that his case just goes in a circle and doesn't address con's at all. [How is the wake-up call superior to con's case of comforting? How is tragedy inevitable and why should we be reminded?]. Conduct to con because of pro's ff.
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Death23
Poe-vahkiinNacTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
Poe-vahkiinNacTied
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: Conduct to Con for the forfeit. Arguments to Con. Pro failed to fulfill the BoP that tragedies are absolutely needed since the definition was never contested. Pro had the full BoP, and thus he needed to overcome all challenges that Con proposed, which he never attempted to do. Thus on this alone, I vote Con.