Why do we have cliques? Pro is why, and con is why there shouldn't be.
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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:
At this point you will be voting aff because neg has yet to prove anything throughout the round.
Preston forfeited this round.
Tamison forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
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.