The Instigator
mani_97
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Cheetah
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

life is a competition and you inevitably trample over others to achieve what you want....

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Cheetah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,450 times Debate No: 45035
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

mani_97

Con

I will keep it short......I think that no one can trample others or even get trampled if they work hard enough because the person who achieves is the person who works harder. A person competes with himself to get better and better everyday. No doubt that competition may be healthy and promote a person to work harder but it does not mean that a person who loses or comes 2nd has been trampled over. Take the example of Justin Bieber for example (some hate him but he still has 50 million followers around the world) he came 2nd in the competition in his town in a singing competition but was he trampled? NO. He worked hard toward his goal. Another example can be of Bill gates. He left Harvard university but was he trampled? NO. He worked hard in computers and today his company(Microsoft) is one of the best in the world.
Anna Jameson once said "the only competition worthy a wise man is with himself"
Cheetah

Pro

Hi, thank you for giving me this opportunity to debate with you. I shall start off with rebuttals.

REBUTTALS

“No doubt that competition may be healthy and promote a person to work harder but it does not mean that a person who loses or comes 2nd has been trampled over”

Competition, passion, and desire is the background incentive to almost every major thing we do, this is agreed by my opponent in this statement, on the other hand, this statement is a red herring from his original stance indicated in the title of this Debate that “Life is (not) a competition”. From owning the most Dr. Seuss books in preschool to getting into a desirable college in High School to one’s career life and beyond, everybody is driven by competition. It is in human nature to compete with others to survive. This primitive whim to compete is observed and analyzed by Charles Darwin in his book, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, then later developed into the popular maxim “the survival of the fittest” by Herbert Spencer [1] who evolved Darwin’s observations into ‘Social Darwinism’, the theory of Natural selection to apply to the modern, civilized society.

“Another example can be of Bill gates. He left Harvard university but was he trampled?”

Bill Gates is a perfect example of a successful genius. This level of success is very hard to acquire and have a very slim chance that requires a lot of trial and error. There are many others who tries to establish the same things as Bill Gates, creating software, and did not succeed (yet). As Microsoft expanded, Microsoft establishes copyrights to secure their programs to keep their products in their hands, this takes many opportunities away from many unknown programmers who might even started off their projects before Gates and Allen but didn’t finish it before Microsoft. Bill Gates is not being ‘trampled’ because he is on the top of the success pyramid (respecting the fact that Microsoft came close to owning Monopoly in computer software business) and along the process, ‘trampled’ over many programmers.

ROUND 1

Social Darwinism + Competition
As mentioned in my first rebuttal, Social Darwinism [2] is taken and adapted from the idea of Natural Selection and moulded to agree with our modern society. In primitive times, humans must compete with others to ensure their survival and the survival of our species, this is classic Natural Selection. In our current society, however, fighting or lethal competition is not needed, but, like energy, competition for survival has now evolved into competition for financial success. Those who lack the incentive to compete with others does not win the game. Those who do makes a climb to the top of the pyramid-like hierarchy of wealth.

The World Only Cares About What it Can Harvest From You
Now, why does competition for success have to do with Social Darwinism? In High School, students compete with their friends over the best colleges, these colleges / universities often have very low acceptance rates. For example, Harvard University have an acceptance rate around 5-6%, in this case, millions of students around the world must compete with each other to be above the 95% of the students that will not be accepted and acts as a ladder for these elite students to trample over them into success. If you are really 16, then chances are you and I are both competing to get into a good college.

Another academic example is how AP Exams are scored. Every year Collegeboard makes these complicated formulas to calculate how well over the others a student is. As a consequence, in an AP Exam, you can achieve a great / passing score just by getting a better score than the person next to you.

In employment, employers will employ those who they feel would fund them with good work and maybe a positive attitude. Even if one have worked hard, they are not guaranteed a job if they are compassionate. In order to compete over a job position (especially in high-paying positions), you must state how you are better qualified than other candidates, this is probably the purest form of competition you will experience in your lifetime.


Footnotes: (Please feel free to check out these sources)
[1] http://www.aboutdarwin.com...
[2] http://www.princeton.edu... (PDF)
Debate Round No. 1
mani_97

Con

Rebuttals:
Firstly, The debate isn't that competition is good or not. It is that whether we inevitably trample others or not. Secondly, my idea of presenting the example of Bill Gates is that when he was not a known person and when he left Harvard then there were companies who had great people and money to do but he worked hard and achieved. And today many people have different goals and don't even look to achieve that high. And the one who works harder achieves.

Btw, I am 16 but as I said the one of us who works harder will be the one to win.

Round 2:
I say that trampling is bad simply because it results in the undeserving achieving. The one who tramples is too afraid of competition.
for e.g Tiger woods became a legend in golf and became so respected and then it was found out that he was doing D.O.P. And all those life time achievements,respect gone in a second. He was trampling others by taking illegal drugs that enhanced his performance so it was trampling but what did it eventually achieve him

so keeping in mind the real topic of the debate.
Thankyou
Cheetah

Pro

Thank you for your reply, in this round I will give my rebuttals and concluding remarks


REBUTTALS

“Firstly, The debate isn't that competition is good or not. It is that whether we inevitably trample others or not.”


First of, I fail to see why my argument is not attacking your stance. My argument's points are to prove that life IS a competition and at the same time, providing proof to support my stance that people DO trample over others in the process of pursuing success by bringing up Social Darwinism.


“...presenting the example of Bill Gates is that when he was not a known person and when he left Harvard then there were companies who had great people and money to do but he worked hard and achieved”


Again, this isn’t a debate for or against hard work. Bill Gates is an example of a successful businessman, but did others (the other 7 billion people) worked any less than Gates? Working hard does not necessary mean that you will achieve more. Bill Gates is where he is now solely because he is an opportunist by making computer software right before the great boom in computer development. At the process of his success, Gates have ‘trampled’ over other programmers as well. Since the successful release of Windows 2000, ‘brand loyalty’ is created. Brand loyalty slims the probability of windows users to switch to another operating system, hence making it extremely difficult for small developers to prosper. See the outrage against Mac OS, Mac OS is a flawless and beautiful operating system, however, many Windows users despise Mac OS simply because it is different (and of course, there are others who provide a coherent reason).


“Tiger woods became a legend in golf and became so respected and then it was found out that he was doing D.O.P. And all those life time achievements,respect gone in a second. He was trampling others by taking illegal drugs that enhanced his performance so it was trampling but what did it eventually achieve him”


I see some kettle logic here. First of all, you are saying that Tiger Woods would not have achieve what he did if it weren’t for “D.O.P” (which I have never heard of nor showed up on Google), doesn’t this mean that if he didn’t trample over others he wouldn’t have been successful? Secondly, I am unable to find a source indicating that Woods used performance-enhancing drugs. Golf does not require overwhelming strength, it tests one’s ability to mentally calculate and hit the ball with the right force and direction within the allotted 45 seconds.


-End of Rebuttals-


CONCLUDING ARGUMENT

As to conclude this debate, I would like to restate my position with support. Life is most definitely a competition. Competing with yourself is insufficient in pursuing success. This is vividly exhibited in the market where companies feud with each other for popularity. Another prime example comes from job competition, people trample over others to occupy vacant jobs and others are put back to the street. Competition is the definition of life, we have seen competition since prehistoric times up to today. For aforementioned reasons, I suggest a strong vote for PRO.


Final Remarks

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to debate with you. Best of luck with your college applications and the SAT.

VOTE PRO


Footnotes:

Same sources as my previous round’s arguments
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
I'm sorry for such a long post, I will keep it short next round!
Posted by Nels4Tats 3 years ago
Nels4Tats
this sounds interesting and I would like to follow it! Good luck!
Posted by MonasheeMan 3 years ago
MonasheeMan
My apologies for the forfeit.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
mani_97CheetahTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice formatting, Pro. I would have given you and S&G for that alone, but Con also made numerous S&G blunders so its not even a contest. Con's args were statements of belief that were either inaccurate or off-topic. One example was Con's claim that "trampling others" is "bad." It doesn't matter whether or not "trampling over others" is moral or ethical in this debate. It simply must be shown that is necessary for success. Pro used sources while Con did not.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
mani_97CheetahTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made more thorough arguments and rebutted many of Con's points quite effectively. Both side had equal conduct but spelling goes to pro as there are some clear spelling mistakes. Sources to pro as he used it and Con didn't.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
mani_97CheetahTied
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: Pro made better arguments and refuted most of Con's arguments and showed trampling is necessarily inevitable for the achievement of success.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
mani_97CheetahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate goes to Pro since he pointed out that "trampling" has many benefits which is the result of competition. Conduct to Con since Pro attempted to redefine the debate. Sources to Pro. Good luck to you both in future debates.