The Instigator
darnocs1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Uniformity ought to be valued above individuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 1 vote the winner is...
darnocs1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,124 times Debate No: 24214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

darnocs1

Con

I would like to challenge my opponent to a values debate modeled loosely on the Lincoln-Douglas structure (intro, definitions, value and/or criterion/a, and contentions supporting a thesis).

My opponent may start the debate, and will advocate the resolution (uniformity ought to be valued above individuality). I will respond with arguments for the superiority of individuality.

Good luck to my honorable opponent!
yuiru

Pro

Hello, I will be arguing, "uniformity ought to be valued above individuality" as I am currently PRO.


First off, I need to be coached, I am the worst debator on earth and don't know logic!



Debate Round No. 1
darnocs1

Con

darnocs1 forfeited this round.
yuiru

Pro

You forfeit... *shrugs*

Okay so I'll make just one argument:

Uniformity is more important than individuality because if it is not true, everything we know about history and the universe is flawed in some way.

That would mess up a lot of things!

It could also lead to total mayhem on earth and the destruction of proper education!

Thats just my 2 cents...

Debate Round No. 2
darnocs1

Con

Individuality is essential because it enables us to be open minded. Individuality can be defined as "the assumption that natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now may be different from what we believe them to be." Basically, individuality doesn't seek to be "the same" for the sake of sameness as uniformity does. Both are mindsets that result in different consequences. Individuality is a superior mindset (and thus ought to be valued over uniformity) because it encourages an open mind. For example, Galileo believed that the universe was not geocentric––he challenged the views of the majority (uniformity) and stood out as an individual. We know (or at least we think we know) that he is right. However, we should always be willing to change our viewpoint if we have sufficient proof that an old viewpoint is incorrect. If everyone we know is incorrect, that's not an inherently bad thing. That just mean we need individuality to show us the truth.
yuiru

Pro

yuiru forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
Sorry I forfeited! I was on vaycay and forgot about this site
I just want to point out, individuality is never defined as "the assumption that natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now may be different from what we believe them to be."
Posted by darnocs1 4 years ago
darnocs1
Ah, oops. Sorry, there's a real National debate tournament coming up in a few days.

I'll accept your definition.
Posted by darnocs1 4 years ago
darnocs1
Whoa, how extremely fallacious and mendacious of the site to delete your argument. That stinks…I'll respond with some definitions that we can use.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
About 5/6 of my first argument was deleted!!!!

Please define: "uniformity" in your own terms, because outside sources of its definition do not fit your implication of what it means!

Until then, I will be arguing that: Uniformity (the assumption the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe) ought to be valued more than individuality.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
"Only a complete retard would take this."

Or a very determined one. :D
Posted by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
There's literally no way to argue this without trying to justify collectivism, which, apart from compelling rhetoric, completely fails if put to any kind of scrutiny.
Posted by Cruxispal 4 years ago
Cruxispal
i'll take it if you agree to coach me. I'm quite new to debating in general.
Posted by darnocs1 4 years ago
darnocs1
Unfortunately, this is an actual high school debate resolution I've seen and will possibly be coaching. I actually think there are more possibilities than it seems at first glance, but it'll definitely be a very example oriented debate.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 4 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Only a complete retard would take this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
darnocs1yuiruTied
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: This took a weird epistemic turn. Pro's point about uniformity somehow making our knowledge reliable was a straighforward argument from popularity and Con's modest admittance of epistemic uncertainty won the debate. Conduct tied for forfeits from both sides.