The Instigator
philosphical
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
wonderwoman
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

fighting does not solve anything

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,519 times Debate No: 10085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

philosphical

Con

This topic is referring to people who get involved in a fight with a malicious hatred, or dislike towards one another.
I stand against the resolution stated "Fighting does not solve anything"
for the following reasons.

Most of the time, before the fight begins between two people, both individuals constantly insult each other, get in each others faces, and just continue these things with non-stop pointless anger towards one another. Now a careful analysis, or personal viewing, shows that after the fight has ended, these things stop. Now there is a few cases where it few continues, but in most every other situation, the two individuals just either ignore each other, or make-up and become friends.

Since that none of you could validate a personal experience, I will use a television UFC example. Before Chuck Liddel and Wanderlei Silva fought, they absolutely hated each other. At the weigh-ins, Silva got up into Liddel's face, which led to him flipping Silva off, and an almost pre-fight.
After these two warriors battled it out in the octagon, with a very close match, (in which Liddel won) the two hugged, and had each gained a new found respect for each other.

Many of these happenings take place around our schools, or homes, and other local places. Most every fight ends with truce, and eventually peace.

I will even go as far as to use Wars as examples. What war have we been in, that didn't eventually end in both sides coming to a truce, and being generally peace-ful towards each other? The answer is none. We currently trade with just about every country, in which we have previously had wars with. Those that we don't, we simply ignore. It's not like we're going to constantly fight with those we dis-like.

Now it is a very rare occasion, when after a fight, hate and discrimination towards each other continues.

Even on this very own site we have examples on this! We all know there are many here who have had hot blood towards another in the past. But how much of that still continues, after a big argument clash?
Right now our very own mongeese and theLwerd our slowly piecing back together after a widely popular and disturbing clash between the two of them in the forums (honesty box, and apologies). But slowly everything is becoming peaceful. This fight resulted with both individuals apologizing, and is now becoming a thing of the past.

I stand by these arguments, and patiently await my opponent.

thankyou
-philosophical
wonderwoman

Pro

First I will start with definitions

Solve: to clear up or explain (a mystery, crime etc) as in that crime has never been solved (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Anything: Any object

Fighting: is purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition.

I would first like to go over my opponents case
His first point of the case of the two pointing fingers and yelling, is not an accurate example of a fight and therefore must be disregarded.

In his second example using UFC this is an accurate example of fight. However, it solved something not anything. The two are very much different. Something is defined as One having some or many of the same attributes, character, or essence as another. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Being UFC fighters both have a strong endurance, muscle strength, and well want to fight clearly. Therefore, the hate between the two is regarded as something, as the hate is of the same attribute and essence in both persons. Anything, however is an object. Hate is not an object and is not tangible and therefore is not anything but it is rather something.

His war example is hilarious. Let me get to some examples that have escalated because of fighting. Unless my opponent is unaware he United States has been at war with Afghanistan before and is now currently at war with Afghanistan with escalated tensions. However, my opponents example of is an example of something, not anything.

We can use Freud to explain how the unconcious works. So, that even if all these somethings my opponent mentions it can boil down deep inside them and then they snap or have a case of trauma. Much, like TheLwerd and Mongoose/Mongeese example.
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Con

I will go over my case, then proceed to arguing my opponents.

First my opponent says the incident at the weigh-ins between Chuck Liddel, and Wanderlei Silva was not a fight.
I don't recall ever saying that was a fight though. That was merely an example of the dis-like the two already had for each. The purpose of me writing that, was to show that after the fight, all this ended, thus solving there situation of hate and dislike for each other, and istead transforming it into respect.
By the way, this wasn't a seperate point from the fight. So saying the incident at the weigh-ins, is innacurate.
This tied into the point I was making about how after the fight, these idividuals had no more loathing towards one another.

Now my opponet says there is a vast difference between the words "something" and "anything".
This argument is in-valid for the following reasons.
1. Whether the issue is classified as something, or anything, that still doesn't hit the action of how fighting actually SOLVES nothing, which is my opponents burden in this debate.

2. Something is referring to one individual thing. Anything is referring to to ALL things. So would "something" not go into "Anything" in this case? If "Anything" is just made up of a whole lot of "something's" then technically there is no difference at all.

3. "Anything" is talking about the problem. The word "Something" is talking about the problem. My opponent simply resorted to saying that 'something' is a more proper word to use than 'anything'.
So if I say, "Fine, I agree, I should have used the word something in the resolution.", what has my opponent actually proven? By dis-proving one word and replacing it with another, you are not actually solving the resolution, but the word play of it. The resolution in itself has not been argued.

Onto my war example. There is one thing my opponent has clearly missed from this argument. Have we not been in other wars before? Have all of them not ended? After all of these wars we have been in, are we still in hot air about them? The answer to all these questions is no. My opponent brings our current war as an example and talks about escalated tensions. Again, have we not been in wars before in which we had "Escalted tensions"? The point is that all these wars have ended, and truces have been made in all of them, resulting in peace. Those we do not feel comfortable with, we simply refuse to trade with. My two main points are that after a fights conclusion, respect is formed for one another, or the simply ignore each other. Both of these result in peace, which mean the said fight is "solved".
My opponent seems to think the current war we are involved in will never cease and continue on for eternity. But what evidence would lead her to believe such a thing, I must ask? This was is small in comparison to, lets say the civil war. The Civil War is said to be the most bloody American wars. More Americans died in that war than any other american war. Yes there was strong tensions brought up from that war, but it eventually ended, and the confederates became part of the union. This is only one war example however. Find me one war, or fight for that matter, that has not been resolved after a physical bout has occured.

Now on to the Lwerd/Mongeese example. I have not been significantly proven anything.
Since my opponent uses Freud as an example, but goes on to explain absolutely nothing about his "Unconcious mind" theory. Basic knowledge of Sigmund Freud, would show that this has nothing of tangibility to do with this debate.

"One key factor in the operation of the unconscious is "repression". Freud believed that many people "repress" painful memories deep into their unconscious mind. Although Freud later attempted to find patterns of repression among his patients in order to derive a general model of the mind, he also observed that repression varies among individual patients. Freud also argued that the act of repression did not take place within a person's consciousness. Thus, people are unaware of the fact that they have buried memories or traumatic experiences."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I fail to see how any of this ties into how fighting solves anything. In fact I could actually use "The unconcious mind" to argue my side. And I will do so.
This theory shows how people may have thoughts or feelings towards themselves and other, that may be negative, and they can be completely un-aware of them.
When tensions before a fight arise, all these are brung forth, and enter into the concious mind. Now when the fight actually takes place, people tend to see more through the others eyes, by viewing their opponents physical difficulties and comparing them to their own. They find that they are not so different from the other after all, and when the fight concludes, they can see more eye to eye. This is not always the scenario as with theLwerd, and Mongeese situation. We all know that they personally are not fond of each other. But no matter what, when a fight ends, both parties gain respect towards one another.
Does theLwerd like Mongeese?
Does Mongeese like theLwerd?
No.
But while they dis-agree with each other, and don't hold the same values, I believe that both have gained a respect for each other. Not a respect for each others actions, but a more peaceful respect. They respect each other enough not to carry this issue til' the death, and they both know that they have different opinions. They understand this, and have accepted it, and moved on.

This is the same with any other fight scenario.
You could use the quote from ghandi here:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Seeing as my opponent has failed to hold up her claim to providing arguments of her own, I shall end this case.
thankyou wonderwoman for the acceptance of this debate.
-philosophical
wonderwoman

Pro

wonderwoman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Con

I will quickly clarify my rebuttal to pro's theory of how nothing appears differently then anythings.

My opponents definition of 'anything' is as follows:
Anything: Any object.

My sourced definition of 'anything'.

–pronoun 1. any thing whatever; something, no matter what: Do you have anything for a toothache?

–noun 2. a thing of any kind.

–adverb 3. in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all: Does it taste anything like chocolate?

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

Seeing as anything, in this case, refers to a wide variety of objects, I think that it would be safe to say that "nothing" would fit into anything, if not equal to.

Fighting in this case, would solve everything seeing as a mutual respect is gained between both parties following a fights conclusion. At the least both parties may become friends, or at least ignore each other to the point where personal issues are no longer a problem for anyone.
wonderwoman

Pro

Sorry for my forfeit.

Anyways, I'll start the case again.

Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Nothing is clearly not anything but rather the absence of anything, so for my opponent to make the claim that is my burden to prove That I must prove that fighting does not solve nothing is wrong. As clearly the resolution and name of the debate read anything.

I define anything as any object.

While it is true that anything may be something, it is not true that something may be anything. Because anything is any object. Hate is not an object but rather a feeling. A feeling is an emotional state or disposition; an emotion (http://www.answers.com...) So, a feeling is not an object and therefore cannot be anything and it must therefore be something.

His ghandi quote I would contend argues for my side. "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
What does that solve? Once again Solve: to clear up or explain (a mystery, crime etc) as in that crime has never been solved (http://www.thefreedictionary.com......)

My opponent concedes that he has a flawed resolution and that something has the possibility of being anything but is not necessarily anything.
"Fine, I agree, I should have used the word something in the resolution."

My opponent uses examples of emotions and emotions are not objects, so that is flawed reasoning and concedes that the resolution is flawed. I must say that you vote pro upon those facts alone and the definitions I have provided throughout all of my rounds. When Con only provided definitions in one of his rounds and his final round at that. Thank you and vote pro :)
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chrisallen 7 years ago
chrisallen
there seems to be a lot of confusion in this debate over what is actually being debated. I actually thinks, though, Con is correct on this point. "anything" is not synonymous with "everything" - in this context we are indeed looking at whether fighting can solve something, where that something could be anything.

by the initial parameters of the debate, though these weren't hugely clear i admit, pro should be looking to show that fighting always solves nothing, wheras con must show that fighting sometimes can solve some things.

that's my take on it anyway.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
LM: Just another day in proving his awesomeness.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
You kidding? Fighting solves boredom!
Posted by GhostWriter 7 years ago
GhostWriter
I wish I could vote...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
A better aff approach would be "Fighting solves the issue of which group is stronger".
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
damn thought I had it planned that I'd get home with like 20 minutes to respond turns out I was 20 minutes late
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
However anything is a wide variety of any object as you said. If anything is made up of a whole lot of somethings, then virtually the only thing it lacks is nothing, which isn't what we are debating. I do not fall so easily for word scams.
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
anything is closely related to something which is no way shape or form nothing
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
I fail to see the difference.
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
actually my burden is to show how fighting doesnt solve anything not that it solves nothing
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by HazelMystic 7 years ago
HazelMystic
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
philosphicalwonderwomanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25