The Instigator
TheBoom
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

a persons perspective is subjective

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheBoom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 93317
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

TheBoom

Pro

Perspective is subjective when it comes down to individuals views of the world and anything in it. We are emotional creatures and emotions cloud our thoughts and corrupt our perspective."Emotions," wrote Aristotle (384"322 bce), "are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements,"
https://www.britannica.com...
SJM

Con

By definition someone's perspective is someone's view, and my opponent is arguing that in all situations someone's view is subjective. But what if they saw something factual? If they saw something factual then it would be something objective, thus proving my side of the resolution. Unless my opponent tries to argue that no one can see anything factual. However someone's perspective does not necessarily mean it has to be a judgment or an opinion, someone's view of something could be for example, "that chair is made up of atoms".
Debate Round No. 1
TheBoom

Pro

Could one be without feelings when speaking about a certain subject, sure we can hide our emotions but do we ever actually stop feeling. I am sure that my opponent would agree that emotions drive us in ever day life on a primitive level and yes we are able to consciously try and deal with them but it does not stop us from feeling them. That said does that alone not make us just a bit bias on any material we see, touch and examine in turn makes us subjective by nature. https://physicalspace.wordpress.com...

Would you say that are first action on anything as human beings is to be objective or are we subjective first? Do you not feel before your thoughts arrive, good example is anger, it rises so quick, we as human beings need a coping strategy to subdue are primal instincts.
https://brocku.ca...

Unfortunately for us we are hard wired to feel. Feelings are subjective. I agree we have tools and strategies to make our perspective objective but are human nature is to be subjective and that is why these tools have been put in place. That said without these tools, which could be psychological strategies to scientific measurement equipment we remain subjective by nature which in turns makes our perspective subjective at every turn.

https://intentionalworkplace.com...

This is a quote from the article linked above "It was clear to Damasio that as a result of his surgery, Elliot was incapable of making decisions, "Elliott emerged as a man with a normal intellect who was unable to decide properly, especially when the decision involved personal or social matters." Even small decisions were fraught with endless deliberation: making an appointment took 30 minutes, choosing where to eat lunch took all afternoon, even deciding which color pen to use to fill out office forms was a chore. Turns out Elliott"s lack of emotion paralyzed his decision-making." Without emotion (which is subjective) we are unable to function correctly. Due to our emotions we will always remain subjective as well as our perspective.
SJM

Con

My opponent"s first point is that because we do not stop feeling, our perspective is bias. But see the thing is, just because we are feeling a certain emotion when thinking about something, does not mean that the feeling is necessarily affecting the view of something. For example, I could be having a bad day, but if my perspective of something is that it"s made up of atoms, then it"s clear my feelings didn"t affect it. My opponent"s logic would mean that every single point someone made, couldn"t be factual. Therefore nothing anyone has said could be objective because everything which one has said would be affected by feelings, but of course that"s not the case therefore in some points feelings do not affect points, thus not being subjective.

"Would you say that are first action on anything as human beings is to be objective or are we subjective first? Do you not feel before your thoughts arrive, good example is anger, it rises so quick, we as human beings need a coping strategy to subdue are primal instincts."

Does it matter which one is first? As long as there are such perspectives which can be objective, my side of the resolution is proven.

If humans are hardwired to be subjective, that does not remove the perspectives of individuals to be objective. As my opponent said, there are some cases in which tools are used to make someone"s view objective, therefore that view is objective. Even if we didn't have these tools my opponent talks about, if humans have the ability think about a fact, then that person has the ability to have an objective view about something.

My opponent"s last paragraph is about an article in which feelings affected someone"s view of something, but yet again, if one person is able to have an objective perspective, then it disproves my opponent"s side of the resolution. If someone"s perspective is that something or nothing exists, one of them has to be right, therefore since there are people on both sides of this contradiction, one side has to have an objective view.
Debate Round No. 2
TheBoom

Pro

I understand what my opponent is referring to when he speaks upon objectivity and that humans can be objective with the use of tool or not, objectivity still exist, and yes you can"t have one without the other, that is like water and ice but that is not in question here, the argument here is that a persons perspective is subjective in every aspect , I am not stating that objectivity is an illusion but that any subjects we choose anything, we speak on or anything that a person does is subjective and that any use of subjectivity in any aspects of our life even on subjects that might be objective is still truly a person subjective perspective for the lone fact that we used subjectivity to get to there. If that alone does not make our perspective subjective then maybe the following will intrigue you;

The point of the article was to show how taking some damages to some parts of the brain especially the parts that are required for emotional functionality, will have the effects of humans not being able to make choices from minor situations to important decisions which in turn shows us that if you disable our natural emotional function it makes us non responsive. We rely on the parts of the brain that regulate emotions to make choices. I have an interesting link showing and explaining how many parts of the brain we have for emotions or emotional functions genetically integrated in our brain and without those parts we cannot function, here is the link http://www.cerebromente.org.br...

Here is the definitions of subjectivity
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive

Now if subjectivity is to due with feelings , emotions and instinct then my argument is valid when I speak about our emotional connection and the way we make decision which is all about subjectivity. Our brain is obviously built to be subjective at every turn, even our perspective yet, you argue the fact that we can make objective statements "that chair is made of atoms" but how did you get to that decision? Was it a triggered memory or smell etc. any decision you make is a subjective one, no matter the circumstances you will always be subjective before even getting to objectivity which makes a persons perspective subjective.

I want to say thank you to my opponent it was fun and an honor to debate this subject.
SJM

Con

Sorry I have such little time.

Ok so my opponent"s whole last argument is in response to me saying that someone"s perception of something can be objective. Now for someone to have an objective perception of something they would have to have to let emotions or bias affect the perception. For example if someone feels a bias towards saying things are made up of atoms, and then this person says something is made up of atoms, then his perception isn"t necessarily wrong since it"s a fact things are made up of atoms. Now, my opponent provides the definition of subjectivity which is, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. But this definition is more unreliable than definitions provided by merriam webster which I provide which is, based on feelings or opinions rather than facts. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now in order for someone to have a subjective perception, their view of something would have to be based on opinions rather than facts. Now this does not necessarily mean someone can"t have emotions toward something, but only that their perception may not be based off it. Therefore my opponent's whole case has been refuted.

Now my opponent brings up the point that without emotions we wouldn"t be able to make decisions, but that does mean that someone couldn"t make perceptions. Here I provide the study my opponent is talking about. "A few years ago, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn"t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat."
http://bigthink.com... The only thing this study proves is that someone can"t make decisions, but someone could still make perceptions since the people can still explain things logically.

"Any decision you make is a subjective one" Notice how my opponent says decisions, not perceptions, thus trying to strawman my argument.

"You will always be subjective before even getting to objectivity which makes a persons perspective subjective." My opponent essentially saying that someone needs to have a subjective perception before coming to an objective perception which is proving my point that there are objective perceptions, even if it came later.

I thank my opponent for this debate and the people who take their time to vote.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@RainbowDash52 Thanks.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
...Of course the voter knew I would accept a blank vote. This has been part of voting policy for longer than I've been moderating. By requiring no RFDs, the debaters are quite literally opting out of moderation. No one is required to post any RFD, so moderation doesn't require one. If someone posts a terrible RFD, it's treated the same as a blank one. That's the choice debaters make in opting out of requiring an RFD, an option they literally have to select.

As for how we know, Airmax does have moderation powers on the site. He can find this stuff out.
Posted by RainbowDash52 7 months ago
RainbowDash52
@PowerPikachu21 when casting a vote, where it says "Reasons for your voting decision", if it says "Required" after it, then an RFD is required, otherwise it is not.
Posted by SJM 7 months ago
SJM
I have yet to find one that's an actual won debate.
Posted by SJM 7 months ago
SJM
I mean just look at this guy's debates
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
PowerPikachu21
I see no check box on the "Start a new debate" thing saying "Is an RFD needed?" (Unless Vote comments is it?) Plus, there's no way to know whether or not an RFD is needed. The voter somehow knew you would accept a blank vote. This is kind of suspicious.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
If no RFD is required on a debate, as no RFD was here, then the voter is not required to fill in the space with any reasoning. The instigator of this debate chose specifically to uncheck the box that's automatically checked when they arrange to start a new debate. That was their choice. If they choose to uncheck that box, then they choose to opt out of vote moderation excepting clear instances where someone has breached a site rule.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 7 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@whiteflame Where does the debate say "You can vote whoever, nobody will care"? I could not find anything along those lines in the debate. A vote is always supposed to be sufficient, unless it was a fully forfeited debate, a joke debate, or if the Instigator says in Round 1 that you can vote whoever. None of those apply to this debate. So how come you're letting that vote off the hook?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] No RFD is required for this debate and, as such, votes are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
A very close debate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 7 months ago
David_Debates
TheBoomSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
TheBoomSJMTied
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:30