The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

is arrogance too much self esteem or too less??

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 86210
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Good day, future opponent. I am arguing that arrogance is due to a lack of self esteem, and why and how will be in the next round. This is just for acceptance. Please try NOT to forfeit.


Good day to you as well. I accept!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting.
I believe arrogance is due to a lack of self esteem for a few reasons...but first, a definition of self esteem..

confidence in one's own worth or abilities; self-respect.

By this, we can say that self esteem is positive, for confidence in ones abilities is needed to further move on.
Now, the issue here is that arrogance cannot possibly stem from too much self esteem.
arrogance, or being conceited is defined as-
excessive pride in oneself.

How, you may ask? Well, to begin with, arrogance is wrong, and an immoral quality to build upon. If self esteem is healthy confidence, then arrogance is over-confidence. But, it still is not from too much self esteem because self esteem is a positive attribute. It does not make logical sense to have too much of a positive attribute. Too much, in itself is denoting a negative quantity. If so, then how can one have too much of a good quality?

Also, a confident human being has faith in their abilities, but does not exclusively rely on them. When you have arrogance, you think that you are the sole cause of your abilities, and you alone are the centre. This is derived from a lack of confidence because one who is arrogant already has doubt in their abilities. They are already weak in the mind. They boast so they can make themselves feel better, and try to get the approval of others.

The arrogant always seek to impress, just by their character, which means they rely on others to feel good. A person with self esteem cannot be like this because they have a good measure of their skill, and of their short comings. They do not need the approval of others when it comes to feeling good.

In conclusion, arrogance cannot be an extension of self esteem, because self esteem is healthy confidence. And, you can have a LACK of a positive attribute, but you cannot have too much. Logically, this does not make sense, if you think about it. Eg) Can some one be too nice? No!

Thank you, and I look forward to a good debate.


One can argue that arrogance can arise from either too high or too low of a self-esteem, not only one or the other. My opponent is arguing that it arises from too low a self-esteem. While that may be the case in certain scenarios, I will argue that arrogance more often comes from too high of a self-esteem.

My opponent believes that because self-esteem is a positive attribute, one could never have too much of it. Unfortunately, this is not true. There are plenty of things which are good for us in the right amounts, but too much can be detrimental. For example, trusting people is generally good in creating bonds, but being too trusting of others can cause oneself to be taken advantage of. Also, awareness of one's surrounding is important in keeping oneself safe when in an unfamiliar environment, but constantly fearing for one's safety can turn into paranoia, a very unhealthy state of mind. Likewise, it is generally good for one to have a high self-esteem, but too high a self-esteem can make one disrespectful towards others, close minded and... well, arrogant. Good traits do not simply continue getting better the more of it you have. There is always room for variability in terms of how much of certain traits one can possess, but when someone reaches the extreme end of certain traits, there can be consequences.

Con states that arrogance comes from a lack of confidence because these people doubt their abilities. I beg to differ. If somebody is arrogant, they are overly confident in their abilities; they believe their abilities make them better than others. That is the definition of arrogant. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines arrogant as "having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people" (

My opponent writes that arrogant people want to impress others in order to get attention, and that people with a higher self-esteem would never do this since they do not require others' approval to feel good about themselves. Con and I agree that attention is one thing that arrogant people often desire, but my reasoning differs from my opponent's. I think that a more rational explanation is that arrogant people have too high of a self-esteem, thus they seek others' attention because they want to maintain their high self-esteem. Subconsciously, I think arrogant people have placed themselves at this high level of self-esteem, but keeping themselves at this level is hard to do by themselves so they seek people's attention. Let it be known that basic psychological principles show that all people require attention, but some need much more than others and vice versa.

Yes, people can be too nice. And generally it creeps people out, because you come across as fake, as if you are hiding your true colors behind a smile. Also, it usually takes a toll on the individual due to the mental resources it takes to always be nice. This reinforces my point that traits which are positive in the right amounts, such as being nice, trusting others, and having high self-esteem, can have consequences when too much is displayed.

I look forward to my opponent's response!
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your argument.
I believe that pro has my meaning of attributes mixed up. By attributes, I don't mean things like arguing, trusting, or being suspicious. I mean things like kindness, mercy, respect, etc.
I believe pro is wrong that arrogance is from too much self esteem, because this phrase basically means self respect. How can one have too much respect??? This is not possible. Also, I strongly believe that it comes from a lack of confidence. Why else would one boast, and show off themselves?? It is to feed off of other peoples attention, to gain their approval. As an arrogant person, I know this. (though i do try at humility). Arrogance cannot mean that you have too much confidence. Why? Because again, it is a trait! Confidence means that you have faith in yourself! You cannot have too much faith! That itself makes no sense! One who is arrogant is lacking of self esteem due to the fact that they try to warp reality for themselves. They want to make it seem that they are higher, when they are not. This, again, is due to a lack of condience.

Thanks, again


Con states that one cannot have too much faith in oneself. One absolutely can have too much faith in oneself. If somebody actually believes they are better at soccer than everybody else at their school when they are really just as good as everybody else, then that person has too much faith in him/herself. As I mentioned before, it is important to believe in yourself. But, there is a certain point where you begin to only focus on your positive traits and completely ignore your negative traits. This may seem good initially, but it is important to look at all aspects of yourself, not just the ones you like. Otherwise, your self-concept will be inaccurate and you will become arrogant.

Arrogant people, by the definition I provided earlier, are often very vocal and insulting. People with low self-esteem generally are quieter and keep to themselves. That said, I ask my opponent this: if someone has too little self-esteem and therefore lacks confidence, how could that person have enough confidence to openly claim that they are better than other people? The definition of arrogance and low self-esteem contradict each other and cannot go hand in hand. It is more logical that arrogant people have too much self-esteem than too little. If their self-esteem was too low, they likely would not have the motivation to express themselves the way that arrogant people do.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks for the great argument! One can most certainly not have too much faith. If they are arrogant, they surely have little faith. Why else would they rely on others for attention? One who has faith can and will limit this if not erase it completely. Pro said that arrogant people cannot lack confidence. I disagree! One who consistently believes themselves to be superior clearly lacks real confidence. They boast and feign confidence to compensate for insecurity. Again, this is to try to make themselves feel better, and at the same time, get attention to try and gain confidence. One who has high self esteem already acknowledges their abilities AND weaknesses. An arrogant person is scared, and hides from their weak points, and uses arrogance to cover for it. Why else do they try to amplify their existence to an unnesscary degree? This is clearly from a lack of confidence! A person with good self esteem has no need for this. The term over-confident is just referring to the fa"ade put on by the arrogant. They seem so sure of themselves, but what happens when their weaknesses are exposed! Or when they make some sort of error! They just crumble. Their confidence is just a fake.
Thanks once again.


My opponent does not seem to believe that people can have too much faith in themselves, when countless studies and surveys have shown the opposite. The majority of Americans believe that they are better drivers, more ethical and smarter than everybody else, which is statistically impossible. The following video demonstrates some key points of what is called the “overconfidence bias.”

My opponent writes that “One who consistently believes themselves to be superior clearly lacks real confidence.” What is real confidence? What is fake confidence? Confidence is confidence. If I feel extra confident about something, somebody could not just come and tell me “oh, you are not really confident. That is fake confidence.” Not only would this be disrespectful, but ignorant. How would anybody else be able to judge my emotions without knowing exactly how I am thinking? If somebody truly believes they are superior to others, than their confidence is real to them.

For example, say I am the fastest kid in my gym class. I could claim that since I am better than everyone in my gym class, I must be better than all the other kids in all the other gym classes in my school. This would be arrogant because I am overgeneralizing my abilities to irrationally large proportions. Yet my confidence would be very real to me because it is based on the real experience of being the fastest kid in my class.

If you look at arrogant people, many of them are really successful, like Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber and Kanye West. Whether you like these people or not, the reason they have made it to where they are now is because they are extremely good at something. Con writes “Why else do they try to amplify their existence to an [unnecessary] degree? This is clearly from a lack of confidence!” The people I listed most certainly do not lack confidence; they have way too much of it, they are arrogant. They are surrounded by money and fame. How could they have too little confidence?

Confidence is good. High self-esteem is good. But having too much turns into arrogance.

Debate Round No. 4


Nice points there. Countless studies have ALSO shown that arrogance is not a form of self esteem. the celebrities you have mentioned are only successful materiestically anyways. Also, you fail to undertsnad my point that real confidenc is acknowledging your weaknesses and strengths, and striving everyday to improve. You did not attack the fact that they crumble when their weak points hit. If you are arrogant, it obviously means that you are dependant on others for mental satisfaction, and you need their approval to move on. If you are humble, you are already aware. Also, we are not discussing what arrogance looks like on the outside, as your argument strayed there.
In conclusion, one cannot have too much faith in themselves because faith and arrogance are completely different things. They cant be an extension of one another.


I am disappointed that my opponent did not provide us with at least one of the "countless" studies showing that arrogance is not too much self-esteem.

Throughout this debate, my opponent has warped the definitions of self-esteem and arrogance, and made them much more complex than they really are. Once again:

Self-esteem: a feeling of having respect for yourself and your abilities
Arrogance: an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people

If you are arrogant, then by definition your self-esteem is too high because you are overgeneralizing the extent of your abilities and claiming to be better than other people; you lack humility and you are giving yourself more respect than you are worthy of. The reason arrogant people feed off of other's attention is to aid them in maintaining their elevated self-esteem.

Arrogance is most certainly an indicator of too much self-esteem.

Thank you very much 14_UKNWN_14 for debating me!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JayShay 2 years ago
Alright, thank you!
Posted by 14_UKNWN_14 2 years ago
You can do rebuttals in round 2, its fine!
Posted by JayShay 2 years ago
Hello 14_UKNWN_14! Since you did not create a round by round format of this debate, I am assuming we can keep it relatively informal. I was planning on making my argument as well as rebuttals to your arguments during round two, and continuing with this format until the final round. Do you accept this or would you like me stick with only my argument for round two and save the rebuttals for the next round?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason why I'm voting Pro is that I never get a clear reason to prefer Con's case. He tells me a lot about how he perceives arrogant people behaving, but the explanation requires me to believe that, by and large, arrogant people are covering up deep issues that stem from low self esteem. It's not that I don't find this plausible, but rather that it requires more assumptions than Pro's arguments. It's easy to see how self-confidence can become overconfidence, and Con's explanation that one is good and one is bad is not enough. Pro explains why we should accept that too much of anything is bad, and the rebuttal I get to those points seems to focus on how we should view them under ideal conditions. Pro also gives me far better analysis of why his points are true, giving me real world examples. Both sides should provide links to support the views that there are studies supporting them (neither side does, despite claiming that these studies exist), but Pro still does enough to win.