The Instigator
joshowosho
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
SaintNick
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

in our current society, there is no such thing as a non-conformist

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 3 votes the winner is...
joshowosho
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,378 times Debate No: 6892
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

joshowosho

Pro

In our Current society, people claim that they are non- conformists. However, by joining this group of people, "the Non-Conformists" you are conforming to a certain set of standards and beliefs, therefore, conforming.
SaintNick

Con

Greetings.

I will attempt to prove that there are, in fact, such things as non-conformers in our society.

First, a definition of the term non-conformist must be established. I ask that my opponent accept:

non-conformist - a person who does not conform to generally accepted patterns of behaviour or thought

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

This definition is entirely relevant to the debate, as it is the actual topic of discussion. My opponent would like you to believe that anyone who conforms to anything is a conformist. This is not true, as a definition of conformist reads:

conformist - behaving or thinking like most other people rather than in an original or unconventional way

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

If you accept that not everybody thinks or behaves like most other people in society, i.e. criminals, then you accept that not everybody is a conformist and therefore is a non-conformist. Also, so far my opponent's tactic has been a cheap attempt at a semantical argument. Of course according to his parameters, anyone who conformed to anything would be a conformist, therefore making his side of the argument impossible to lose. However, the fact is that there is an actual definition for the term, which seeks to define those in society who do not adhere to social norms. These people do in fact exist. Moreover, if my opponent truly wishes to argue this debate from a semantics point of view, I'd like to introduce another definition of the term which is both highly recognized and of course acceptable:

"Nowadays, churches independent of the Anglican Church of England or the Presbyterian Church of Scotland are often called Free Churches. In Scotland, the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church is considered nonconformist."

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Because of this, it would be impossible to argue that non-conformists don't exist in contemporary society.

In conclusion of Round 1, I have proven why my opponent's semantical argument does not hold water. I have also proven why it would be impossible to argue that non-conformists don't exist. Back to ye.
Debate Round No. 1
joshowosho

Pro

joshowosho forfeited this round.
SaintNick

Con

I don't really know what to say. Please extend all of my arguments. I hope my opponent returns to conclude this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Good job, Con. I hate semantics arguments (most of the time :P).
Posted by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
I will enjoy following this debate, due to its humorous nature.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by steelman 8 years ago
steelman
joshowoshoSaintNickTied
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 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
joshowoshoSaintNickTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
joshowoshoSaintNickTied
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:07