The Instigator
jonlee
Pro (for)
The Contender
GhostOutOfShell
Con (against)

individualism > collectivism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
jonlee has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 109 times Debate No: 106552
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jonlee

Pro

I am seeking a highly skilled opponent to sharpen iron with.

Do not accept if you are young, lazy, inept, or a novice. Accept if you are knowledgeable, potent, grammatically astute, and ready to bring it.

DEBATE RULES:
First round will be a brief opening statement of position. The question of individualism or collectivism should be thought of in relation to a state, and how a society should be structured with the thriving of humanity as it's sole objective.

You must fully read and attempt at comprehending the argument, as I will do the same. I am not seeking a dull and vague youtube comments section debate, I want an intellectual Judo - match.

CON will start the debate with an opening position in favor of collectivism.
GhostOutOfShell

Con

A little off-topic
I might not fit all of your requirements, since words like young are way to relative to really mean anything outside of ones perception, though my knowledge in philosophy and experience in formal debating should be sufficient enough for a high quality debate and I expect same from you as well.

If I understood you correctly you are kinda aiming for a cheap shot with this op, might be a misunderstanding on my behalf if so my bad, but anyways i don't mind it and will just fall for it willingly if i am correct here. (It seems like you want me to put brief opening in round 1 without doing so yourself.)

On topic:

General form of my argument
1. Politics is the art of government of collective unit, usually similar to a nation in it's essential qualities;
2. Every ideology that is superior in political sense acquires this superiority by being beneficial for a collective which it governs;
3. Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with what's beneficial for a collective;
4. Collectivism by definition always try to achieve what is beneficial for a collective;
5. Hence collectivism is in line with the function of politics while individualism doesn't have a stable position in this regard.

This is very generalized form of my main argument, which i will expend on in latter rounds.

Few things for clarity
I want to clarify that when getting in particulars I will be defending left wing versions of collectivism, I think that's important since they are different in many regards and many times even opposite from right wing variations.

I am as well assuming that you'r arguing for Liberal individualism (judging by your profile) if i am mistaking here please specify.
Debate Round No. 1
jonlee

Pro

Greetings! Thanks for accepting, I believe by the quality of your opening that we will enjoy a high level of thought and discourse. Let me squash, for lack of a better word, any notion that my op was an ambuscade. Being my first attempt at opening a debate here, I failed to fully articulate what I wanted in terms of structure, and will adjust my mistakes in the future.

As it where, let me first clarify that I indeed will be arguing for the Liberal individualism of the Enlightenment. More specifically, the human individualism envisioned by Thomas Paine and Jefferson. I will follow suit and produce 5 general arguments, then we can take it from there. I am more than pleased to see that you are arguing for a leftist version of collectivism " because I feel it is a more relevant topic. Therefore! We should have a good debate.

General Arguments
1.Collectivism by its very nature, leads to the death of individuals. Not every human life can or does contribute to the good of the collective.
2. Political participation is the duty and privilege of every citizen whom desire their voice to be counted --- and not enforced if they object to doing so.
3. In collectivism the distributors are never distributed to, producing a dual tiered hierarchy, with the distributors reigning as kings, and the people as their serfs.
4. Collectivism leads to the strict rationing of goods and services, by the autocratic state, which has always, and so one should assume always will, led to the demise of large groups citizens, in every situation known to man.
5. Collectivism will continue to fail because it is a system which stands in contrast to the very nature of mankind, of the nuances involved with being a society of conscious apes. Being so, society progresses only when the state is so restricted, the creative pursuits of the individual are emphasized, not the soulless singularity of an enforced collective.

Opening Statement
I will ask you a question and you can take it from there, instead of conjuring a statement.
1. If the collective good is the highest virtue, not the rights of the individual, what prevents the state from say ending genetic diseases by means of euthanasia and or sterilization procedures?
GhostOutOfShell

Con

Now I do believe that there was no intend of tricky play from your side, I have seen rebuttals only type of debating to many times, though that's was coming, I am pleased to say that it was a mistake on my behalf. For the future I would suggest going with opening positions in first or acceptance in first opening in 3th without rebuttals while opening.

For this round I will try to advance my position further, answer your question and raised some questions on my own, will comment on your five major arguments as well.

In regards of your question
In short nothing, same applies for individuals as well, the question should be whatever that is (When using "that" I mean suggested action, not imply consequence.) beneficial to the collective as a whole first and foremost. Another thing that should be considered is that collectivism doesn't completely undermine individuals, only their supposed "rights" that would have negative effect for the collective are restricted, for example private ownership in Marxist sense of this term. You should not forget that collective is a unit created for the wellbeing of majority of individuals. So my point it, yeah there is nothing stopping this action, however there is no reason to take it as well.
Comments on your arguments
1."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" leftist Collectivism doesn"t ask from those who can"t, only from those who would rather not to.
2.Modern democracy is a myth, just a race between the rich that can fund and sustain their campaigns, trying to choose lesser evil every time is not much of a privilege from my perspective. Whatever it should or should not be enforced is up for the state to decide really, it"s a freedom everyone gives away by being a citizen.
3.In the worst case scenario here you have rich state under collectivism or rich private property owners under individualism, difference is that collectivism has better options here, individuals, at least liberal one implies capitalism which makes it stuck at worst option as the only one.
4.Not true, even having a state is a form of collectivism in itself, which doesn"t have to lead to it. But I will go more into extremes here, self-proclaimed "Individualistic" countries can only live well when abusing others, whatever it"s for oil or cheap labor. Individualism always will work for few, for the so called lucky ones, while the rest will have to suffer.
5.Now that"s a big claim, so what is this nature of mankind and what arguments would prove it? Is it static, how do we know if it"s static?
I am only getting my feet wet here, point is I would like for you to expand on your points, since none of them seem to stand on their own in my view. I would also like to hear what problems you might see with the general form of my argument, I will try to restate it here more in detail, to give you more to work with.
My position
1.Politics is the art of government of collective unit, usually similar to a nation in it's essential qualities;.
2.Every ideology that is superior in political sense acquires this superiority by being beneficial for a collective which it governs;
3.For something to be beneficial for a collective it has to be beneficial for majority of its parts, in this case individuals;
4.Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with what's beneficial for a collective;
5.Individual freedoms and wishes are not always in line with freedoms and wishes of other individuals;
6.Collectivism by definition always try to achieve what is beneficial for a collective;
7.Hence collectivism is in line with the function of politics while individualism doesn't have a stable position in this regard. Even more than this, collectivism is beneficial to most individuals, while individualism is beneficial for the powerful few.

P.S. Sorry if there are any grammatical mistakes, I"m in a rush today so had to type this down quickly.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.