The Instigator
Vanish
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
angrymen
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

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...
angrymen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,351 times Debate No: 24260
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Vanish

Pro

I challenge any one and everyone to a debate. The topic which we will be debating is 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'. The only terms which I have are that the debate should stay on topic and that the debate should remain respectful. Apart from that there are no other terms. I also believe that if this debate doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger. I eagerly await my opponent
angrymen

Con

I accept. Since I assume first round is for acceptance, please present you case.

Stronger- having, showing, or able to exert great bodily or muscular power; physically vigorous or robust, mentally powerful or vigorous. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Kill- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Vanish

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I wish him luck.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Even though it is just a saying I find that it is actually true. Let's say that a man goes to war, when he come out he will be stronger than he was before. If there is a particular sickness that is just so strong but a person manages to survive it they will be stronger than they were before. First of all they will be stronger mentally, as they will know what to do in case of the sickness. There are many other examples that can show you that this argument is correct.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
angrymen

Con


I wish my opponent luck and hope to have a good debate.



In many cases things that don’t kill you don’t make you stronger, sometimes they even make your life worse. My opponent brings up war as an example. Soldiers don’t return home after wars the same person. Many times their life completely changes and not for the better. Psychiatric illnesses like shell shock can cause symptoms such as tremors, nightmares, depression, confusion, and many more. http://en.wikipedia.org...


Besides war there are many other times that things that don’t kill you don’t make you stronger. Low amounts of lead in the body can cause plenty of problems, and doesn’t kill you. Symptoms in adults included decline in mental function, muscular weakness, and memory loss. Symptoms in kids and babies included slow growth, learning difficulties, and weight loss. People who suffer from this are not physically or mental stronger. http://www.mayoclinic.com...



There are plenty of diseases and disorders that can weaken and cripple people without killing them. Cerebral palsy is a brain injury that causes kids to lose motor skills as they age. Also patients have decreased muscle strength and more pain as they age. Some patients with cerebral palsy have a decline in cognitive functions. Kids with cerebral palsy become weaker and will always need constant care. http://www.spastikerforeningen.dk...



Even Friedrich Nietzsche, the man who said “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, was an example of why this is not true. He contracted syphilis and had a mental breakdown. He began writing letters saying things like “I have had Caiaphas put in fetters. Also, last year I was crucified by the German doctors in a very drawn-out manner. Wilhelm, Bismarck, and all anti-Semites abolished.” He also became partially paralyzed, and then unable to walk or talk. While he was alive after his breakdown he did not become mentally stronger. http://www.iep.utm.edu..., http://en.wikipedia.org...



Something that I see on a daily basis like cigarette smoking shows why this statement is false. Smoking is done even though it provides almost no benefits. Many times smoking cigarettes do not kill people, but how does that make you stronger? People who smoke cigarettes do no become physically or mentally stronger.



There are many things in this world that do not kill us but they all do not make us stronger. In fact many of them make us weaker.


Debate Round No. 2
Vanish

Pro

Nice argument angrymen. Nice argument indeed.

One thing that I found is that we have just both listed both the good and the bad things that come from circumstances not killing you. Could that simply be coincidence? Truly in the war people don't come back unharmed but there are those who don't suffer from combat stress reaction. Those come back mentally prepared for danger of pretty much any kind. Then there are those that train exceptionally hard during the war. They train with the mindset that they're going to win. Some get stronger to avenge their lost comrades.

Yes, I do admit that many illnesses that don't kill you do damage you but then there are those illnesses that help shape people up. I shall star off with an example that might be quite common. Let's say there is a little boy in beach clothing sitting in the cold for no reason. The boy will most probably catch a cold. After that though the boy would have grown stronger mentally, he would now know to put on extra layers in cold temperatures.

Children who have learning disabilities still learn, even if they grow slow they are still growing. Yes even though the things might make you weaker in some aspect do they make you weaker in the long run?

You could live without that much food. That doesn't kill you and it does make you weaker at first until you get used to it. There are many disabilities and weaknesses that people are facing and surviving through that actually make them stronger than their average self in that aspect.

Many people might seem weaker than others and weaker than they should be even though they are truly stronger.
'Don't judge a book by its cover' is a saying that applies to this case. As people look the book cover might suck but the book is a different story all together.

Friedrich Nietzsche didn't get mentally stronger but in his craziness he probably did extra things that would probably prove useless but might just have been good forms of exercise. That would be right up until he got paralyzed though.

Now I shall acknowledge the point you made on smoking. Smoking is rather bad and it does have a lot of disadvantages but there are a few advantages that might make some people stronger.
1. Helps people eat less.
2. Gives quick & temporary stress relief.
3. People become slimmer.
4. Good social booster in some cases.
5. Accepted by people you'd rather not mess with.

I believe I have touched all points of notice. Good luck angrymen.
angrymen

Con

My opponent says "Those come back mentally prepared for danger of pretty much any kind". But is this true? Veterans are more than twice more likely to commit suicides than non-veterans. Veterans ages 20-24 who served in the military during the war on terror are about three to four times likely to commit suicide. In 2005 there were 6,256 veterans who committed suicide in 45 states. That means about 120 veterans were committing suicide every week. This data shows that many veterans have a hard time adjusting and living in our society.
http://www.cbsnews.com...

The common cold is not going to stop if you put on extra layers. And this boy may just learn to put extra layers on in the cold, but how does that make him stronger? On average children have six to ten colds a year. the common cold accounts for 22 million school absences. If this boy is stronger for learning to put on layers, he would be even stronger if he went to school and learned and have never had the cold in the first place. http://www.healthguidance.org...

My opponent claims "You could live without that much food. That doesn't kill you and it does make you weaker at first until you get used to it." But starvation does have long term effects. During the Siege of Leningrad when the daily ration was 460 kcal per day, of the population of 2.9 million, 630,000 people died from hunger related causes. When they studied 5000 men born in Leningrad between 1916 and 1935, they found that "men who had been in the siege around the age of puberty had blood pressures a mean of 3.3 mmHg higher than normal. This group also had a higher rate of death from ischemic heart disease and stroke, including hemorrhagic stroke. Lifestyle and socioeconomic factors did not confound the association between death from cardiovascular disease and siege exposure." This shows that even if going without food doesn't kill you it can certainly negatively affect you in the future. http://www.eatingdisordersreview.com...

On my argument about smoking my opponent gives 5 advantages of smoking.
"1. Helps people eat less."
-As I showed eating less is not always a good thing.

"2. Gives quick & temporary stress relief."
-Stress is a part of life and there are plenty o healthier ways to relieve stress.

"3. People become slimmer."
-look at 1

"4. Good social booster in some cases."
-If you have to harm yourself to be accepted, there are probably more issues going on.

"5. Accepted by people you'd rather not mess with"
-Not sure what this means. I would rather not mess with the drug dealers in Detroit that doesn't make it good to be a drug dealer.

I have shown why my opponent’s case does not work. Good luck.

Debate Round No. 3
Vanish

Pro

Good argument angrymen.

Yes, I do admit that there were a lot of veterans committing suicides but did you ever ask how many veterans weren't committing suicide? About 24,000 veterans are alive and didn't commit suicide. The answer to the question shows that while some veterans did commit suicide and were therefore weaker (because of something that didn't kill them) the other veterans were stronger at some point after whatever war they were in. Of course there are those veterans who are alive but have some type of disorder, but there are also those that don't have disorders and are stronger in a way because of whatever war they were in.

My opponent pointed out that even if going without food doesn't kill you it can certainly negatively affect you in the future. Well my question to you is what about those who live in third world countries? They don't eat as much but they still stay as strong and sometimes even stronger than those in richer parts of the world. They eat less than others but they really aren't affect negatively in any way.

As I said before smoking is rather bad but there are still advantages. I shall disprove my opponent's disadvantages.
1. Helps people eat less.
- As I showed eating less is sometimes a good thing.

2. Gives quick & temporary stress relief.
- There are the uneducated but deeply troubled who run into those that give them the cigarette. They see that it gives them relief temporarily and then they go out there and get more, later getting addicted.

3. People become slimmer.
- Look at 1.

4. Good social booster in some cases.
- There are the teenagers and youths who would think that their friends would think of them as 'cool' if they smoked.

5. Accepted by people you'd rather not mess with.
Getting accepted by drug dealers doesn't mean that you have to become one of them.

Now look by to my third sentence. I said "one thing that I found is that we have just both listed both the good and the bad things that come from circumstances not killing you." Can we just come to the conclusion that the saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger is sometimes right and sometimes wrong?

Thank you and good luck.

Sources:
-http://dva.state.wi.us...
-http://www.time.com...
angrymen

Con

My opponent asks "Can we just come to the conclusion that the saying what doesn't kill you makes you stronger is sometimes right and sometimes wrong?” But the problem is the vast majority of the time that statement is wrong.

Every 14 seconds someone is injured in a car accident in America. Unless you know millions of people injured in car accidents, you will never be affected by 99% of car accidents in your life. None of those events made you stronger in anyway.
http://www.lawcore.com...

There are so many things happening in the world right now and you are only exposed to a tiny amount. And almost all of them do not make you stronger in any way.

Every 60 seconds

  • "710 computers will be sold, 555 of them containing an Intel product.
  • 232 computers have become infected by malware (32.6% of computers sold).
  • 2.6 million CDs, containing 1,820 TB of data created.
  • 450 copies of Windows 7 sold.
  • 12 websites have been hacked after a 416 attempts.
  • 1,400 discs are rented on line using redbox.
  • 950+ purchases on eBay, with 180 of them coming via a mobile platform.
  • $219,000 of total payments transactions through PayPal with $10,000 being from mobile.
  • 1,100 acres of land farmed on line in FarmVille.
  • 103 Blackberry devices sold.
  • A total of 11 millions conversations taking place through various instant messaging platforms.
  • 2 million internet users watched content not suitable for the general audience.
  • $75,000 added to Google revenues.
  • 2,100 check ins through the Foursquare service.
  • 2,500 ink cartridges sold for various printers.
  • 4,000 USB devices sold.
  • A staggering 38 tons of e-waste generated.
  • 18 Amazon Kindle Fires sold.
  • 11 Xbox 360 consoles sold.
  • 81 Apple iPads and 925 iPhones sold."

http://www.redmondpie.com...


Now just looking at those statistics almost all of those are not going to make you stronger in any way. You don't become stronger because 12 websites were hacked or 38 tons of e-waste was generated.

Even something natural like lightning doesn't make you stronger. On average lightning strikes the continental US 20 million times a year. The likelihood of someone being struck by one of the lightning bolts is less than .001%. You are not stronger every time the continental US is struck by lightning. Even the people who do get struck are not more mentally or physically stronger. "
People struck by lightning suffer from a variety of long-term, debilitating symptoms, including memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, chronic pain, numbness, dizziness, stiffness in joints, irritability, fatigue, weakness, muscle spasms, depression, and more." reports the NWS.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov..., http://www.nssl.noaa.gov...


My opponent says "
They eat less than others but they really aren't affect negatively in any way." People need to eat many different amounts of food because no two people are the same. But eating to excess or not eating enough to the point of starvation are certainly not going to make you stronger. And just because they are not negatively affect doesn't mean they are stronger.

Now on to the smoking part.

"1. Helps people eat less.
- As I showed eating less is sometimes a good thing."

-There are plenty of healthier, cheaper and easier ways to eat less.

"2. Gives quick & temporary stress relief.
- There are the uneducated but deeply troubled who run into those that give them the cigarette. They see that it gives them relief temporarily and then they go out there and get more, later getting addicted."

-Smoking causes more stress than in relieves. Smoking only restores stress levels to normal.
http://www.tobaccofreetippecanoe.org...

"3. People become slimmer.
- Look at 1."

-Being slim doesn't mean stronger or healthier than before.

"4. Good social booster in some cases.
- There are the teenagers and youths who would think that their friends would think of them as 'cool' if they smoked."

-Just because it looks "cool", doesn't mean it’s good.

"5. Accepted by people you'd rather not mess with.
Getting accepted by drug dealers doesn't mean that you have to become one of them."


-Just because some people that I don't what to mess with do it doesn't mean it is a good thing to do. No one gets upset if you don't smoke.

I would like to thank my opponent for debating me on this topic.

Debate Round No. 4
Vanish

Pro

An almost perfect argument.

The thing is that there are a few flaws. First of all the car crashes occur only once every thirteen minutes not once every fourteen seconds.http://www.car-accidents.com...

Okay now on to the subject of things that happen every 60 seconds. The thing I don't get is why you would list all of this because it is pretty much just a whole bunch of people buying things. The only bad things were the hacking and the e waste. On to the point of the hacking. If the people get hacked they will soon know how to stop that particular type of hack. Now unto the point of e waste. The thing is that about 99% of all e waste is recyclable.
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au...

The other things I would like to acknowledge are the lightning strikes. Some people do get killed by lightning strikes but there are those who do not. The people who do not get killed are hurt but the thing is that they'll recover pretty soon depending on how fatal the strike was. http://www.emergencydude.com...

Another flaw which I'd like to point out is that if people don't eat until they're starved, they'll die. If they eat too much on the other hand they'll die too. http://wiki.answers.com...
http://wiki.answers.com...

Now unto the smoking part.
For statement number one and two the people could just be uneducated.
In some cases being slimmer does mean being either stronger or healthier than before.
You are right on number four but then there are those who really don't care if it is good or not, just as long as it makes them look 'cool'.
You are also right on number five.

Thank you Angrymen.
angrymen

Con

My opponent says "First of all the car crashes occur only once every thirteen minutes not once every fourteen seconds." But the source he sites says "One person dies in the US every 13 minutes in a Car Accident". I said every 14 seconds someone is injured in a car accident in America. Those are two different statistics.

On the subject of the list about what happens every 60 seconds. What I was trying to show was just some of the things that will happen while you read my argument. You do not become stronger because someone thousands of miles away bought and X-box. Someone buying an X-box did not kill you and it didn't make you stronger.

The same thing is true about the lightning. If lightning strikes and you didn't hear or see it are you stronger? You are not stronger for not being struck by lightning. When people do recover from a lightning strike they do still experience symptoms. The quote in my previous argument from the NWS says "People struck by lightning suffer from a variety of long-term, debilitating symptoms, including memory loss, attention deficits, sleep disorders, chronic pain, numbness, dizziness, stiffness in joints, irritability, fatigue, weakness, muscle spasms, depression, and more." http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov...

My opponent says "Another flaw which I'd like to point out is that if people don't eat until they're starved, they'll die." Yes but many people don't die. Risks of not eating enough range from dehydration to muscle atrophy to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. These symptoms may not kill but certainly don't make you stronger.
http://www.nondiet.com...

Now about the smoking part.

My opponent responds by saying "For statement number one and two the people could just be uneducated.
In some cases being slimmer does mean being either stronger or healthier than before.
You are right on number four but then there are those who really don't care if it is good or not, just as long as it makes them look 'cool'.
You are also right on number five "

Being uneducated or not caring about the problems and effects of smoking and then smoking doesn't change the fact that it is a bad thing to do.

I would like to thank my opponent for debating this with me.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Vanish 4 years ago
Vanish
Thanks for the tip Ahmed.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
>>"An almost perfect argument."
You shouldn't compliment arguments that much, that is a borderline concession right there and voters may vote according to statements like that.
Posted by Vanish 4 years ago
Vanish
I meant look back to my third sentence in my third argument.
Posted by angrymen 4 years ago
angrymen
Im having some trouble with my computer. Ever since I logged on to my gmail, every website has been in danish. Please forgive me if I am late posting my arguments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
VanishangrymenTied
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: "Yes, I do admit that many illnesses that don't kill you do damage you but then there are those illnesses that help shape people up." This alone is an admission that not everything that does not kill you makes you stronger.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
VanishangrymenTied
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: The resolution states that what doesn't kill you *makes* you stronger, not *can make* you stronger. Con showed many examples of things that do not result in death or being stronger, to which Con admits this and tries to change his burden by arguing that there are some examples of the opposite. The war example is one of them. Here Pro admits that some veterans have committed suicide as a result, thus the resolution was clearly negated.
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 4 years ago
daytonanerd
VanishangrymenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't fulfill the BOP, as Con was able to refute the arguments successfully. Pro didn't properly use sources.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
VanishangrymenTied
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: Con successfully argued his side, Pro offered arguments that did not stand Cons refutations. Pro also made inaccurate statements with no sources.
Vote Placed by GORGIAS 4 years ago
GORGIAS
VanishangrymenTied
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: Cons arguments were more convincing.