The Instigator
theocatzop
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
DAVCACTUS
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

if everyone likes you then you do not have a personality.

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...
theocatzop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,216 times Debate No: 54892
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

theocatzop

Pro

I've decided to let my opponent start. Acceptance first.
DAVCACTUS

Con

I accept to stand in the opposition side in this debate, proving that it is not true one does not have a personality if everyone likes him/her.
Debate Round No. 1
theocatzop

Pro

OK , first of all, on earth there are about 7 billion people. Everyone is different and has different tastes. So do you. People tend to reject those who have different beliefs not because they are racists but because they can not agree with them and they get annoyed by their behavior. For example, I don't like overweening people because they think they know everything. This results in intense disagreements and thus we do not have a very good relationship. You can not like everyone because there are certainly human categories that you hate or some characteristics that you don't like on people. There will always be someone who doesn't like you because he thinks that you're narrow-minded and you do not smoke and do drugs like him and someone else who doesn't like you because you do all these things. You have to choose. You can't match with everyone. Let's not forget that there are some situations where it is not very difficult for someone to hate you. For instance, I f you like a boy very much and he has a girlfriend you have to do something to persuade him to break up with her and be with you. After all, this girl won't like you especially if you used to be friends.
The only way for you to be liked by everyone is to be dishonest and double-faced. For example, the one day you smoke all the afternoon with some of your "friends" and the other day you pretend that you think smoking is the worst habit and that you are an anti smoker in order for you to be liked by your other "friends". This doesn't make clear who you really are and thus you do not have a personality.
DAVCACTUS

Con

To clear the confusion, firstly I intend to start with the definition of 'personality' and 'everyone'.

Personality- the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people

Everyone- means “everybody” and is used when you want to refer to all the people in a group.

Because of the ambiguity of the debate title, I will assume that everyone means the people one knows and has met in his/her group of circle as it is impossible for every single one in the world to truly get to know someone.

’No personality’ meaning someone who does not have a set of emotional qualities.

I would like to give two people as unforgetten examples.

1. Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa chose to become a nun despite the hardships that would come with it and dedicated her whole life to serving the poor. After the founding of the Missionaries of Charity, she received an international approbation and won the Nobel Peace Prize. Even after she died, many people still serve her as an example to living a life of altruism and selflessness.

Her kind, gentle, loving personality was what people look up to her thus, becoming a role model of charity and service.

Source: http://history1900s.about.com...

2. Steve Jobs or any other genius creator for that matter. The creator of the famous Apple product who earned many respect and admiration for his foundation. He too had a distinct character that enabled his imagination to become reality. I propose you watch his speech here.
https://www.ted.com...


Personality is something flexible. However, it is impossible to have 'no personality' or no sets of emotional qualities because everyone has emotions and feelings but it's just that no one truly tried to get to know them properly.

This moves to my next point, which will mention the importance of truly getting to know a person before judging him/her. The reason why people start to hate each other is just because they seem different. However, if they truly get to stand in the person's shoes then they will be able to understand why they are atheists, why they do drugs or why they dont, why they act that way.

My second argument is that everyone is capable of being liked or has the possibility of being liked by everyone they know . This is because humans have the power to empathize with another. The empathy in itself serves as an emotional quality of a person and that is why someone who is liked by everyone is capable of doing such thus, maintaining his/her character.
Debate Round No. 2
theocatzop

Pro

OK, there are so many mistakes that I don't know where to start. Before I set my first argument I have to comment something you mentioned. You said that the topic is quite unclear. You know what? If you thought that the topic is difficult for you to understand, you would ask for clarifications. But instead of doing this, you started supporting your views and you complained at the beginning of your article. That means 2 things:

1) You have totally understood the topic but you wanted to make me seem that I can not make clear my thoughts and to make other people judge you mildly by the excuse that you did not understand the theme.
2) You did not actually understand the topic but you did not care and you preferred to start arguing without knowing what exactly you are supposed to defend and by assuming things.
But come on now, how did you not only accept but also started supporting your views without having totally understood the topic?

To start with, your examples were unclear. If you wanted to say that these people are liked by everyone then you are wrong. Against Mother Teresa: http://www.firstthings.com...
Against Steve Jobs: http://hereticalnotions.com...

There's also a possibility that you wanted to say that these people have a flexible character. Let me tell you that there is a big difference between having a flexible character and changing your character ever day in order to get along with everyone. I didn't say that it is not good for someone to change himself/herself but if tyhis happens every time he/she meets different people, then something is wrong. For example, you can not care and at the same time not care about the environment.
I also read a comment of yours and you said: "Yes, because it is quite impossible for Mother Teresa or Steve Jobs to know you or know that you hate them haha well first because it's impossible to know everyone and second because they are dead XD" OK, the fact that they didn't know that there were/are people who didn't/don't like them, doesn't mean that there weren't/aren't. I'm sure that they met some of those who didn't/don't like them but as they are still famous despite their death there should be some individuals who hate them too, although they didn't get to know them personally. Even if they hadn't realized that there were some haters of them, they would still be hated by some people. Someone is not loved by every single person in the world because the/she hasn't realize that he is hated by some people.

The above explanation rebuts your argument: "I will assume that everyone means the people one knows and has met in his/her group of circle as it is impossible for every single one in the world to truly get to know someone". It is possible for someone to know your beliefs and habits even if you do not know him. That happens mostly to famous people. For instance, a celebrity says something that makes you think negatively of him/her and form a bad impression on him/her. He may do not know that you dislike him but you do.So, everyone means 2 things: 1) every person in a group and 2)it is used for talking about people in general (source: http://www.macmillandictionary.com...). When I used this word I wanted you to think about the second definition as I didn't mention any group. The only group you could think of while reading the phrase was the group of human beings in general.

You also said "The reason why people start to hate each other is just because they seem different. However, if they truly get to stand in the person's shoes then they will be able to understand why they are theists, why they do drugs or why they don't, why they act that way." This is an observation and not an argument. Yes, it would be very nice if everyone got to know other people before judging them, but this doesn't really happen. I agree with you that it is not good to form an impression on somebody before spending some time with him but there are a lot of people who devalue this thought so until we will be able to make it happen we can not speak by making assumptions.

"My second argument is that everyone is capable of being liked by everyone they know. This is because humans have the power to empathize with another". Firstly, empathy is a capacity or feeling and not a power a human being has. Secondly, this is also an argument that is not realistic. It would also be very nice if everyone empathized with others as a lot of social problems would be solved. But nowadays there are many selfish people who care for nothing but themselves. Moreover, empathizing someone means that you recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. It doesn't mean that you also like it. Some of us have the instinct of solidarity that make us want to help people who need it. This doesn't mean that we like them. In fact we may even hate them but because we feel sorry for them we tend to ignore our feelings and help them.
DAVCACTUS

Con

okay, first when you said 'everyone' I thought the general because again, for the millionth time, it is impossible for everyone in the world to know someone or someone to know everyone. I thought when you made the topic, you were already aware of that. And before making such a vague topic, why didnt you think about your own mistakes before blaming someone else of why they couldnt possibly understand what you have come up with? Im just arguing against what I understand from the title.

And you say I was merely pretending to understand but you really couldnt have been more wrong. Because you immediately said the opponent should start first, I began my argument with an assumption that set the bar as you didnt explain in the first round or even gave a definition to what 'everyone' referred to. And I wasnt the only one confused, if you can see, many others have been confused as well. It wasnt a problem with my understanding but your title.

I normally do not pinpoint others but I feel like Ive been so unjustified that from my point of view, it seems like you're trying to exonerate yourself from the incipient confusion you've caused by accusing me of complaining and not understanding what I was talking about.

Your rebuttals against the evidence I have stated (Mother Teresa and Steve Jobs) are totally nonsensical as you are saying that there shouldnt be at least one person who doesnt like them and by finding that someone who did it would prove my evidence inaccurate, but havent you ever thought that there isnt anyone you cant find that doesnt hate someone else on the web??

Then I ask you, since you know so much better about this topic than I do, give one example of a person who actually is liked by everyone that you and I would both know. Oprah Winfrey? Albert Einstein? Barack Obama? I think not. Why? Because like you said, they probably met at least one or two people who didnt like them in their lives that we do not know about.

If you cant even find one person that is liked by everyone, then this title itself would prove to be 100% invalid.

So instead of immediately making this argument futile, I decided to set the bar to everyone meaning a group of people that a person knows.

For example, a class president from my class is liked by everyone (meaning everyone in class) and exclusive of family members, as that would count as everyone in class right?

So if I had made that clear, can I start with my argument?

You say that people must be double-faced and must live a life of pretense in order for 'everyone' to like them, but let me say that people do not have to change their character on a daily basis for others to like them and such a person exists. All of my batchmates agreed to liking our student council (in an actual survey) and she does have a naturally charming and attractive personality. How would I know? Because I am her best friend.

I believe in looking at the good side of people. You may have a skeptical view of looking at humans and relationships, but sorry to break it to you, such a person who is liked by everyone does not have to be two-faced. Some people were just born naturally charming and attractive that somehow draws the good and the bad people.

Empathy is power. If you think power should always sort to something like invisibility or flying, you are wrong. Empathy is power because no other living things cannot empathize with one another except humans. Animals and plants cant empathize. Im saying that someone who hates another person can have their minds changed after learning their story. For example, I hate someone who is atheist but after learning why the other person has a story to that, I can change my views. This does not alter the other person's personality and definitely not my own.
Debate Round No. 3
theocatzop

Pro

OK, I accept that the title was a little vague but if you hadn't understood something you could send me a message or you could even write your question as a comment. You have done this to add an argument and you could have done it to ask a question,too. I don't want to talk about it anymore. What happened happened. Instead of trying to prove which was more vague(my title, your examples) let's consume our energy in an attempt to prove which side is right and which side is wrong.

Your first argument is that a friend of your is loved by all your batch mates and you have nothing to support it. No evidence at all. How do you expect me to believe that? Let me characterize your argument like a seven-year-old boy's one.

And then you said the epic phrase: "I believe in looking at the good side of people. You may have a skeptical view of looking at humans and relationships, but sorry to break it to you, such a person who is liked by everyone does not have to be two-faced. Some people were just born naturally charming and attractive that somehow draws the good and the bad people."

But a little bit earlier you said: "give one example of a person who actually is liked by everyone that you and I would both know. Oprah Winfrey? Albert Einstein? Barack Obama? I think not. Why? Because like you said, they probably met at least one or two people who didnt like them in their lives that we do not know about."

So, you make your argument invalid by yourself. I didn't have to think something to rebut it. You just helped me and thank you. Now, you can not claim that you hadn't understood what everyone means because I had just explained to you.And know to support what you said ("such a person who is liked by everyone... Some people were just born naturally charming and attractive that somehow draws the good and the bad people.") you should give an example of such a person that we both know.

"Empathy is power. If you think power should always sort to something like invisibility or flying, you are wrong. Empathy is power because no other living things cannot empathize with one another except humans. ". Who defines that an instinct ascribed in a certain species is automatically a power? The fact that other species do not feel empathy does not make it a special power that only people have...There are also claims that certain animals empathize, too. (http://www.scientificamerican.com... ) (http://news.discovery.com...)
DAVCACTUS

Con

Wait a minute wait a minute, so now Im the one who's supposed to give an example of a person we both know who is liked by everyone when your title already assumes that there might be such a person?

You were the one who kept giving me arguments that there is no one who is liked by everyone and the argument then became about whether someone was capable of being liked by everyone instead of being about a person having or not having a personality when they are, in fact, liked by 'everyone' in the impossible definition that you want.

To change the argument to the actual point, that was why I had given an example of mine that people dont have to be double faced to make everyone like them. Of course the evidence is based from firsthand experience, but isnt this topic itself about your experience of seeing your own personal friends/people being that way? Isnt experience the reason why you decided to come up with this debate? The experience that people you met who were liked by 'everyone' were all two-faced people?

Im only supposed to prove that there exists such a person who is not double faced and is capable of everyone liking him/her arent I?

I now dont even understand what I have to argue about anymore. When I say something about a person who is liked by the general, you say it doesnt work that way since 'everyone in the whole wide world doesnt like him and her' which I have for the billionth time know would be impossible and when I say something about someone who is liked by everyone meaning in a group, you say I have no evidence whatsoever to prove it when I did try to provide some evidence of people who are liked by everyone as a general term.

You are now in the burden of proof to give an example of someone who is liked by everyone (as I have demanded in my other argument) who does not or does have a personality (as this is what the debate is about). Then the real debate could begin about whether he/she has a personality or not whatsoever.

And no I did not do this to 'purposely add an argument'. Would you please stop accusing me of doing something or even thinking about something I wasnt even thinking of? And I did ask in a question in the comment section. My question was clearly, "Would you like to narrow the scope down to everyone in general?"

Of course I would start with an assumption based from definition. That was how I understood it and I never really said anything about not even trying to understand it excuse me.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
Dude I was fooling around and if you took me seriously then boo hoo for you, Your accusations that she might win due to my comment about her looks is redundant simply because I never took part in voting, I left that to those who actually read the debate. My part was simply a joke and only intended to be light hearted humour. If you have a complexity issue I am sorry I offended you.
Posted by DAVCACTUS 2 years ago
DAVCACTUS
Wow well said. But how are you sure I dont lack in that quality as well? Do you even understand how degrading that sounds in a debating site? Because you're judging not based from the instigator's reasoning and well-put arguments but just for her looks. Im very surprised you had the audacity to post such a bold statement here. Do you even realize how much a fool you made out of yourself for making that public? Not only for me but also for the instigator who might feel offended when reading that.

Others might feel flattered but give her a break she just posted an argument here. I dont think she'd like to know she won from her posted picture.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
johnlubba
A pretty instigator is much more preferable than a purple contending circle.
Posted by theocatzop 2 years ago
theocatzop
OK, I am sooooooooo sorry about my vague title, but stop accusing me for this. Just defend your side and stop repeating that my title is unclear.. And your comment was written after I had already explained you.
Posted by theocatzop 2 years ago
theocatzop
As my opponent does very often, I will add something I forgot to mention in the 4th round. "Because you immediately said the opponent should start first, I began my argument with an assumption that set the bar as you didnt explain in the first round or even gave a definition to what 'everyone' referred to." Yes, but as you should remember and ascertain by reading the 1st round it was me who started first so your complain was pointless.
Posted by Braxton 2 years ago
Braxton
Following.
Posted by DAVCACTUS 2 years ago
DAVCACTUS
I first thought everyone meant the 'general' or majority but then that wouldnt be everyone so I assumed everyone a person meets or knows. Pro? Are you there? Would you like to narrow the scope down to the 'general' kind of everyone?
Posted by LtnDog 2 years ago
LtnDog
I don't think the topic at hand is quite clear enough to understand. Are you saying that you have no personality because everyone likes you? Are you saying that you have no personality because no one likes you? Or, Are you saying that you have no personality because only some people like you? The topic posted right now is not all that clear, and I think the comments here help my statement.
Posted by DAVCACTUS 2 years ago
DAVCACTUS
Am I even allowed to defend myself here in the comment section? 0.0
Posted by DAVCACTUS 2 years ago
DAVCACTUS
and because if everyone referred to all the people in the world then such person would not exist making this argument invalid to debate on. (:D)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
theocatzopDAVCACTUSTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good argument for her case. Con simply decided to be pedantic and argue over the meaning and context of the debate title, rather than the topic of the debate itself. This could have been an interesting debate, however in my opinion Con sadly chose to argue over semantics and devalue this debate into a personal argument over trivial issues not related to the debate subject.