The Instigator
Artless
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Was Aurangzeb an ideal character as a man(not as a emperor) ?

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 5 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 80816
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Artless

Pro

I personally think that Aurangzeb was an ideal as a man. I am certainly not considering him as a emperor but I am putting forth my opinion about Aurangzeb only as a person and not as a emperor.
Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb:
1) Did not ever have lust for women
2) Never drank alcohol
3) Owing to Quran, Aurangzeb restricted his number of wives only upto 4
4) He never used even a single pie of the wealth of Mughal empire for his personal needs
5) Aurangzeb ate the food and wore clothes only from the money which he would earn by selling the caps made by himself.
tejretics

Con

I accept. The term “ideal” is a very vague term. Pro’s conception of an “ideal man” may be vastly different from another person’s conception. This results in infinite regression and subjectivity. To call a person an “ideal man” is an impossible task. Let me provide clarification of what an ideal person is. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the definition of “ideal” is: “satisfying one's conception of what is perfect.” [1]Therefore, idealness is based on one’s conception, and is intrinsically subjective.


To negate is to deny the existence, evidence or truth of something. [2] Therefore, the burden is entirely on Pro to prove that Aurangzeb was an “ideal man,” and I don’t see how any of Pro’s arguments links to the resolution. Pro argues that Aurangzeb abstained from lust and alcohol, followed the teachings of the Quran, and used only the money he earned himself. Therefore, Pro’s standard of what makes an ideal man is (1) abstaining from lust and alcohol, (2) following the teachings of the Quran, and (3) only using one’s own money.


Pro doesn’t demonstrate that any of these three is an *objective* standard for idealness. These standards are all subjective, but if the resolution implies a subjective term, then it is an abusive one. If Pro entirely follows subjective definitions, then you can vote Con just based on abuse, since it’s impossible for Con to argue against a truism. Therefore, prefer the objective standard requirement. Until Pro shows an objective standard for idealness, presume Con.


What does Pro has to do to fulfill their burdens? (1) Provide an objective standard for idealness, (2) prove that Aurangzeb fits that standard. The burdens are not fulfilled as of yet, therefore the resolution is negated by default.


----


1. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. 2015. Online.

2. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Artless

Pro

What your argument is basically focusing is that each one has his/her own conception and point of views. Therefore to cite someone as an ideal man comes in hand with perspective and conception.
However, in today's society:
1) Not drinking alcohol is of course an good thing irrespective of anyone's conceptions or perspectives, simply because alcohol is injurious to body and mind.
2) Aurangzeb was free from lust for women, this I mean that predecessors of Aurangzeb used to have "harems" wherein many women used to live and spend one night with emperor. It was basically like prostitution only. Of course in today's society, prostitution is considered offensive and cheap act. Aurangzeb was not indulged in this, so its good
3) A man having food only from his own earnings is of course noble deed, which Aurangzeb did religiously.

All these above things are certainly good irrespective of anyone's conception or perspectives. These things are today universally treated as good. No point of views are needed to prove these ethical axioms.

So I think, Aurangzeb as a man was ideal.
tejretics

Con

There are a few glaring flaws in Pro's argument.

An objective standard for "ideal," even if universally accepted, is contradictory. The *definition* of "ideal" is satsifying one's conception for idealness. And Pro doesn't demonstrate that, just because there are three ethical characteristics, the possession of those characteristics makes one *perfect,* since perfection implies lack of any flaws. Aurangzeb had his flaws, as a person. In 1645, when Aurangzeb was governor of Gujarat, he converted a Jain shrine -- one that respects nonviolence and equality -- into a mosque, and ordered a slaughter of cattle to occur there. [1]

Ethical philosophy suggests that animal slaughter is immoral. Take, for example, preference utilitarianism, which would hold a consequentialist position that the interests of animals ought to be respected. Thus, many ethical systems were -- in process of animal slaughter -- violated by Aurangzeb.

Further, Pro's conception of perfection is moral perfection, which is not necessarily an objective standard for "ideal." Even if it were, Pro would have to presume moral realism, which is unjustified, since Pro doesn't provide any objective definition of "right" and "wrong."

People agreeing with an ethical maxim doesn't entail that the ethical maxim in question is true. Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. According to Pro, anyone who (a) does not drink alcohol, (b) does not have lust, and (c) eats food from their own earnings is "perfect," but that remains to be justified.

In conclusion, I don't see how having these three qualities makes one perfect. Pro fails to justify that. Pro also fails to justify that prostitution is imperfection, or that, just because alcohol abuses the body, not drinking alcohol makes one perfect. Thus, the resolution fails to be affirmed, and is negated.

----

1. Stephen Knapp. "Crimes Against India," p. 64
Debate Round No. 2
Artless

Pro

Artless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Artless

Pro

Artless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Artless

Pro

Artless forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all my arguments.

== Summary ==

Now, I will give you the multiple places where Pro loses this debate.

(1) Arguments. First, "perfect" is subjective. Universal standard for perfect can also be a subjective standard. Pro virtually drops this, and drops my contextual definition of "perfect." Vote Con right there. Pro doesn't demonstrate that Aurangzeb is objectively perfect. Second, Pro's standards for perfect are merely based on things that Aurangzeb did *not* do, while -- as I demonstrated -- perfection is a result of the actions one *does,* and I showed that Aurangzeb performed some actions that secular ethics considers immoral. Third, Pro fails to justify that alcoholism or lust is bad. Fourth, turn the polygamy argument -- Pro says Aurangzeb "only" had 4 wives, but in no way is that an "only." Four wives is polygamy, and -- by Pro's own standards -- polygamy is immoral. Fifth, all offense Pro has is based on comparison to other Mughal emperors. But demonstrating that Aurangzeb was the greatest Mughal emperor is not sufficient to fulfill Pro's burden of proof.

(2) Conduct. Pro forfeits *thrice,* thus forfeiting 3/5th of the whole debate. Forfeits are generally considered misconduct in any debate setting. Three forfeits is almost equivalent to a concession. Vote Con right there. Forfeits are misconducted, and entirely spoil the concept of debate. I accepted this debate hoping for some actual argumentation. Pro gave me some, but wasted much of my time via forfeits. Forfeits are intrinsically bad for debate -- they don't promote any valuable discussion. A retreat and a forfeit are equivalent to a concession.

For these reasons, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
No problem. :)

Glad I had the chance to make a real vote on this debate. You put effort into your case, and you deserved to see an analysis of that effort, even if your opponent didn't put effort into his.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Thanks for the vote, DK!
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Pro essentially repeats his case, but Con follows suit with an example of a grave imperfection (as I mentioned he should do all last paragraph). The stealing of a peaceful shine, and the slaughtering of animals there. This negative characteristic overshadows any single positive characteristic Pro brought up.

Con even uses Utilitarianism to justice calling Aurangzeb a less than ideal man. Not only does this appeal to my moral philosophy, it also gives a far closer to objective imperfection... Unlike Pro's standards, which are moral at best, Con's is measurable by a real standard (utilitarian standards). I want to note that it's not objective, just that it's closer to objectivity.

Pro ff's the next round, effectively dropping all of Con's arguments. He then ff's the final round, conceding the debate by silence.

Con had managed to establish that Aurangzeb had a grave imperfection, and that no matter what, Pro couldn't establish an objectively 'ideal' characteristic. Therefore he wins Arguments. I'll also be giving him sources, as only he had any. None of Pro's arguments had any.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
RFD:

I agree with Con that the BOP is on Pro.

Pro begins the first round by describing how Aurangzeb is ideal... He claims the man never lusted, spent other people's money, and so forth. This all seems 'ideal' but I'd like to put forth the primary issue here. This only explains a few characteristics, and does nothing to fully establish that this men was ideal. Men are simply more complicated than that. This is fine for now, but if Con drags the debate in that direction (bringing up any wars, unfair executions, treatment of women), than Pro will be in a bad position with what little he's given me. Any one of the prior mention negatives would negate all of the good I've been given.

Con starts his rebuttal with the defining of "ideal." Con is correct in bringing up the subjectivity of Pro's case. Abiding by the Quran being an example... I'm shocked I didn't see Con specifically point out how having 4 wives, while idea to Pro, is a grave and even evil characteristics to most everyone else.

Con didn't bring up any negatives about Aurangzeb. It'd still fit into the subjectivity case, as appealing to the subjective opinion of the voters is appropriate to counter his opponent's subjective opinions.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ArtlesstejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
ArtlesstejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments:
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
ArtlesstejreticsTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by logical-master123 1 year ago
logical-master123
ArtlesstejreticsTied
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 dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
ArtlesstejreticsTied
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: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.