The Instigator
briangle
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

we should debate issues of the highest practicality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,406 times Debate No: 42278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

briangle

Pro

when we consider what we should take an interest in and debate about, a heightened sense of social awareness should help guide us towards learning about, debating, and working together on practical matters that change peoples' lives for the better.
rather than focusing on large, philosophical, global issues where people are likely to have little impact, people should focus on local issues like:
how to live a healthy, happy, righteous life
how to have a strong family and build a strong local community
local politics -multimillion dollar school bonds that don't get more than a few hundred votes
local businesses not providing healthy reasonably priced food
lack of jobs due to wealth retention in the community

this helps create greater change and the emphasis on proximity of participants helps people meet their neighbors - creating the kind of strong community that a healthy society thrives on.
of course if someone is especially interested about a specific field or topic, then they should follow their passion, but always with practicality in mind, even if in the back of the mind.
philosophy is fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on, but at some point we need to focus on restoring empowerment in all facets of life. the power to change things by learning about and discussing them is profound, but is hard to find when social organization is at an all time low.
we are largely addicted to electronic, isolating entertainment mostly based on media created by a small enough group of companies as to allow strong collusion, corruption and exclusion of voices that could change the world - the world that so benefits those who are on top and have the most power over it and also the most to lose from it changing.
now with the temporarily open, wildwest internet, we have the ability to connect and change things. we must make the most of this and hopefully sustain this open environment by shifting our organization and communication to higher practicality consciousness.
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you issuing this challenge, Pro. I look forward to a good discussion.

Contention #1 - A person's general philosophy impacts his or her "practical philosophy"
As I have gotten older, I have begun to realize how my beliefs in different areas are all interconnected and how they impact the way I live my life. For example, my Christian pacifism does not end with my condemnation of war. It also influences how I interact with people in my community on a daily basis.

While a debate between a subjective moralist and an objective moralist (or any other philosophical clash you may see on DDO) may seem impractical at first glance, what you are really witnessing is an exchange of ideas by two people whose beliefs affect the way they live their lives as individuals.

Contention #2 - My opponent's argument is self-refuting
After all, claiming that we should invest in our community and work to benefit the lives of other people is itself a philosophical statement. Not to mention that all of the issues he says we should be debating are decisions that people make based on their philosophy.

"how to live a healthy, happy, righteous life
how to have a strong family and build a strong local community
local politics -multimillion dollar school bonds that don't get more than a few hundred votes
local businesses not providing healthy reasonably priced food
lack of jobs due to wealth retention in the community"

A person's answers to these questions are highly dependent upon their religion and worldview.

I look forward to Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
briangle

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge and I also look forward to this and many more debates.

In response to your first contention:
I don't think I ever spoke out against general philosophy " I said philosophy is "fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on." I don't mean to understate the importance of thinking about a wide range of issues of seemingly various importance " only to emphasize the empowerment of creating positive social change in the context of a world increasingly focused on vague ideas of education and entertainment that let debate's usefulness falter.

This emphasis for change seems to be overshadowed by a vague notion of doing what you love and believing in yourself (in america), despite a declining reason for us americans, who are in a mental downfall as a whole, to have this self confidence and lavish ourselves with this freedom to care about and do just about whatever we want.

In order to understand the general point I am trying to make, look at the topics being debated on this website. Most if not all of them have little to no emphasis on creating an impact through the debate. A random sampling of debates now shows people debating the best general in ww2, eating meat being bad, restaurants needing to include calories on menus, existence of pagan gods, etc " none of these are debating how to change things. Rather they are mostly debating things that would better be settled by a study of historical literature or even common sense. Debate used to be more practical than this, I think " and it can be that way again.

Look at the very nature of this site " rather than emphasizing bringing people together to debate things in the context of directly changing the things being debated with the realizations that are gained, it leaves the value of debate open to interpretation. Instead of trying to encourage debate between politicians that will force them to get to the bottom of things by not allowing them to lie or stop debating " instead of trying to connect the process of debate to the process of social change, we are content to let it's reputation and usefulness stagnate as primarily entertainment " since this is the entertainment nation. Or look at politics " look at how much people pay attention to/debate federal politics, where they have very little control, compared to local politics where they have a lot.

Yes debate for the sake of debate is fine, but we need debate for the sake of change. We need empowerment in a world where people are continually losing control over their lives. Even our medium of communication " something that should be sacred - is being slowly usurped by telecomm companies as we spend more time on our phones and online.

And yes you can argue that Everything is a matter of general philosophy, which I never argued against, but you almost must keep in mind what guides our general philosophy. To rephrase the summary/title of this " I should say that practicality infused with social consciousness should guide us in all of our contemplations " whether they be deciding on what president we like or what our favorite color is or what toiletpaper to buy.

Sorry for procrastinating on the response.
I look forward to yours.
OtakuJordan

Con

My opponent's arguments were, yet again, comprised mostly of rhetoric. After sifting through said rhetoric, his last speech boils down to two main points.

1. General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophy
2. General philosophy is guided by practical philosophy

Rebuttals

Rebuttal #1 - General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophy
This in itself can be said to be a statement of general philosophy. Again, my opponent's arguments are self-refuting because they call upon general philosophy to affirm that practical philosophy is of a greater importance, thus subjugating the latter to the former.

I would also like to point out that what my opponent considers to be practical philosophical issues is very strange. Things that affect the day-to-day lives of people, such as whether or not it is ethical to eat meat or the health standards of the food industry, are labelled as impractical by him.

Rebuttal #2 - General philosophy is guided by practical philosophy
This claim is simply wrong. A person does not say, "I am vegan therefore I believe in animal rights." Rather, he or she says, "I believe in animal rights therefore I am vegan."

Contentions

Contention #3 - My opponent has failed to uphold his resolution
My opponent has made multiple statements such as, "philosophy is 'fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on'" and "Yes debate for the sake of debate is fine, but we need debate for the sake of change."

Any and all of these statements refute his absolutist resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
briangle

Pro

briangle forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for debating me, Pro.

Please vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by briangle 3 years ago
briangle
i understand that, but it's a practical philosophical issue.
sad to hear you don't believe in morality.
Posted by bitterherbs 3 years ago
bitterherbs
how to live a happy, healthy, righteous life is a philosophical issue.

Personally philosophy has changed my life more than any other thing. I don't believe in God or morality anymore. Not believing in God has saved me from tons of self torment and wasted time. Not believing in morality has saved me a lot of spare change, hours marching, and from first world guilt.

I would have debated you but I am too busy.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
briangleOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Con. Arguments go to Con: 2 sets of contradictions in Pro's argument stands, importance of general philosophy stands. Also, love the fact that the animal rights debate was mentioned :P