Thank you for this opportunity to debate.
My first point will be that sometimes those who are conquered are happy. For example, let's consider that someone in a communist government supports democracy. If that country is taken over by a democratic one, the person who originally supported democracy will be happy that the government they support has conquered the other one. So, the person in the conquered country is happy, which is contradictory to the quote.
You are welcome. I have read your statment and I politly disagree. If people are conquored, they are denied their right to be happy. When people are conquored, they are forced o do things aginst thheir will. How can they be happy?
Well, I think that everything in this debate depends on how you define conquered. If you look at it from a military standpoint, to conquer means to take control of using force. There is another definition, which is to defeat using force. Lastly, there is another definition that is not literal, which is to gain control of through great effort. The reason I assumed we were discussing the first one is because the the title of the debate mentions victory, and I thought it was military victory.
I disagree, but I shall move on to my next point. The quote says that "Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered are never happy." Well, even if the conquered are always unhappy (which I proved to be false), that still might not cause hatred. Those who are unhappy are not always feeling hatred. Anyone could be unhappy but not have hatred. Therefore, even if the latter half of the quote is true, it does not support the first part.
First of all, you don't know whether I have a good life, so I will disregard that comment. Secondly, I proved that it is possible to be conquered and happy, not that the conquered are always happy. So you might have been conquered a billion times and never been happy about it, but as long as there is at least one scenario where the conquered are happy, that quote is false.
Okay. Assuming you're right about the fact that the conquered don't have liberty, people without liberty can still be happy. For example, let's say someone is in prison, and has therefore lost their liberty. Then they realize that their best friend is in the cell right next to them. They will be overjoyed to be there with their friend, right? Although they have lost their liberty and are therefore conquered, they are still happy.
Thanks again for this opportunity to debate.
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one that formed logical, formative statements that countered the resolution. Pro was no where near showing how every single instance of conquered people were unhappy. SirSocrates showed that there is at least one instance of someone being not unhappy after being conquered. Thus, arguments go to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.