The Instigator
Tamison
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Why do we have cliques? Pro is why, and con is why there shouldn't be.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Preston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 75825
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Tamison

Con

Why in the world do we have cliques, exactly? Some may think that this is quite the childish debate, but this is actually a serious question.
Preston

Pro

I accept, to start i will post the main reason cliques exist and the base logic behind my arguement.

Clique - a group of people who interact with each other more regularly and intensely than others in the same setting (Salkind, Neil (2008-01-01). "Cliques". Encyclopedia of educational psychology)

Seeing that a clique is not exclusive but instead a group of individuals that interact more regularly provides my first point.

1)Cliques Cannot be avoided in any situation
Because Cliques occur naturally my opponent must show the means at which they can logically be eliminated, if they can find no logical means to eliminate this natural process then their arguments fall null and void.

2) Cliques provide belonging to the majority
Because this debate is hard to quantify we will be looking at what effects who to evauluate the impacts. Thus we look at what a clique is. Assuming that a Clique is a group we see several individuals reaping the benifits of social interaction. The only negative my opponent can provide to this is that individuals are left out, HOWEVER this means the majority of individuals receive benefits thus resulting in a net benefit.

3) Cliques are not innately bad
Because Cliques by definition are simply people interacting more commonly with certain individuals rather than others, we see that there is no innate exclusive-ism or other form of exclusion. We can also see that there is no rooted harms that occur only because of cliques. Without cliques we still see hate, we still see discrimination, and we still see violence.

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPONENT:

In order for my opponent to win they must show several things. First, that Cliques can logically cease to exist. Secondly, That Cliques are innately bad, and finally that Cliques are responsible for all harms provided solving for my second condition.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
Tamison

Con

In my opinion, cliques are something we have to demote certain people. There are The Popular's, The Sporties, The Musicians, The Smarties, and then the ones who can't seem to find where they fit in. That is me. At my current school, I have only one true friend. I am not pretty enough to be popular, not good enough to play sports and not get off the field, I can't play instruments that well, and I am smart, but I just don't want to be part of a group that shuns you if you get one stinkin' math equation wrong. I know that not all cliques are like that, but that's the way it is in my school. If everyone just worked together, and excepted people for who they were, the world would be a better place. I realize that it will never be like that, but if we just start at one place, and work for it, then I believe that we could stop cliques, and just be friends with everyone. I believe that we can do it. We just have to try. Thank you for reading, can't wait to hear what you have to say!
Preston

Pro

In my opinion, cliques are something we have to demote certain people. There are The Popular's, The Sporties, The Musicians, The Smarties, and then the ones who can't seem to find where they fit in. That is me.
-Right now your committing a fallacy, your using Anecdotal evidence to support your argumentation. You have no actual impact from the above statement or any other part that relates to you as an individual. All you have shown is that 1/7Billion People are negatively impact. As stated in my case, "Cliques by definition are simply people interacting more commonly with certain individuals rather than others, we see that there is no innate exclusive-ism or other form of exclusion. We can also see that there is no rooted harms that occur only because of cliques. Without cliques we still see hate, we still see discrimination, and we still see violence." thus you draw no impact from 1 persons disinterest because there is no innate negative impact.

At my current school, I have only one true friend. I am not pretty enough to be popular, not good enough to play sports and not get off the field, I can't play instruments that well, and I am smart, but I just don't want to be part of a group that shuns you if you get one stinkin' math equation wrong.
- This would be an impactful statement if the next part hadn't been said...

I know that not all cliques are like that
- So my opponent has conceded that not every clique is like this, in fact if you look to my case, logicaly, interacting with 1 individual more commonly then others is not negative

Because cliques are not innately bad my opponent has no case saying they should not exist, however due to the sense of belonging given by cliques to 99.99% of everyone we only see beneficial impacts.
Debate Round No. 2
Tamison

Con

Well, first of all, I worded that last statement, that's how it is in MY SCHOOL, so read a bit more carefully. I realize that no 2 cliques are alike, and that it's a group of people who interact with people more than others. But really, not any more. What year and what type of dictionary did you find that in? I would seriously like to know. F.Y.I, you used a word wrong, yeah, right at the top there...
Preston

Pro

Con still has yet to show any reason cliques should not exist; To answer his question about the source of my definition, here is the citation "Salkind, Neil (2008-01-01). "Cliques". Encyclopedia of educational psychology." Because he has not refuted my case I push my case, upholding all arguments, I would also like to amend the following arguments.

Friends
Cliques allow for a scene of belonging and naturally occur because individuals who are members of a clique are naturally drawn to one another based off similarities, This provides countless social benefits, such as:

-A Role
-An Identity
-Social Standing

At this point you will be voting aff because neg has yet to prove anything throughout the round.
Debate Round No. 3
Tamison

Con

I am a she. Cliques should not exist because they exclude people. I know what you'll say, "cliques are a group of people who interact with each other more than others" but honestly, IN MY SCHOOL, that's not the case. If you even approach them, they yell at you. Anyways, you have not given me any reason why we should have cliques. I mean, yeah, it's a group of friends in the year 2010. Also, I asked you for the dictionary you used and the year and you have failed to provide it. I have provided why we should not have cliques. I believe that we should except each other for who we are, and not for what we look like, or how we perform during certain occasions, or even how good we are in life. We all have problems and issues that other people don't know about. So there. I have provided more evidence on how we SHOULDN'T have cliques. Thank you, and good luck.
Preston

Pro

Preston forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Tamison

Con

Tamison forfeited this round.
Preston

Pro

Its too bad you FF'ed I posted in comments saying i tried to respond but was out of town.

You will be voting aff because con has not properly refuted my case, because cliques provide a sense of belonging for the vast majority and the majority of the populations benefits should be weighed greater than that of the few. I push my case.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
Sorry bout that forfeiture, i was out of town on a business trip, Post your Final arguement and I will mine, at this point in time you should summarize what you have argued, and what I have argued and why you win ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
TamisonPrestonTied
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: Both sides forfeited. Pro gave arguments that made more sense, about why they exist and what purpose they serve. Con's only argument was that it was different in "her school." The resolution advocates for changing the status quo, which includes a scope larger than *one* school.