Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sport is inefficient

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sport, as a concept, was designed for men to compete, as they once did in the wild for women. However, the bloody and dangerous competing done in the wild was incompatible with many ancient civilisations, as they intuitively knew that society would not function should these extreme competitions take place without restriction. This competition has, nowadays and in those, taken the form of elaborate and superfluous games, of which are relatively harmless (i.e. better, but not perfect). But why? Why are these irrelevancies acceptable?

I ask: since the function of sport is to compete, why should all these excessive methods of competing be preferable over lesser, simpler versions?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:49:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Sport, as a concept, was designed for men to compete, as they once did in the wild for women. However, the bloody and dangerous competing done in the wild was incompatible with many ancient civilisations, as they intuitively knew that society would not function should these extreme competitions take place without restriction. This competition has, nowadays and in those, taken the form of elaborate and superfluous games, of which are relatively harmless (i.e. better, but not perfect). But why? Why are these irrelevancies acceptable?

I ask: since the function of sport is to compete, why should all these excessive methods of competing be preferable over lesser, simpler versions?

What examples are you thinking of when you consider excessive methods of competing?

What examples would be simpler?

Track and pretty much any type of sport where two people beat each other up is as simple as it gets and these are still very popular. They just aren't as marketable or as easy to put on TV as some other events. Soccer seems about as simple as it gets too, and that's crazy popular everywhere but the US (and is arguably popular here too in many circles).

Perhaps I'm just not understanding your point, so correct me if I have misunderstood it.

I think there will always be a place for simpler types of competition (certainly where there aren't large sums of money to invest in complexity - and certainly when it's a casual thing), but there's always going to be an advancement of it into team sports with ever increasing strategic elements. This has the effect of making it a more enjoyable spectator event as well as more enjoyable for its participants in many cases.

Simplicity has it's place, but as society evolves, so does the nature and potentially the complexity of it competitions.
Debate.org Moderator
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:43:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's some fascinating taking control of sport you just did there, Zaroette. I have a different idea, though.

I think it's down to controlling our mortality that people take such enjoyment in sport, both on and off the field (or wherever else). I don't know if any of you ever heard that story about soccer being invented by soldiers kicking decapitated heads around? Yeah, well, that. It's order, basically - like music, painting the walls of you house, etc. It's said the Irish are the saddest of all people, that all our wars are merry and all our songs are sad. We're also all alcoholics. It's like truer sport, it's like women having long hair and nails and trying to love it, lol. And now Zaroette puts an order to sport that puts her in control. Would you look at that?

As regards the complexity of games... well, different things are taken into consideration.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:38:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:23:51 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:49:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Sport, as a concept, was designed for men to compete, as they once did in the wild for women. However, the bloody and dangerous competing done in the wild was incompatible with many ancient civilisations, as they intuitively knew that society would not function should these extreme competitions take place without restriction. This competition has, nowadays and in those, taken the form of elaborate and superfluous games, of which are relatively harmless (i.e. better, but not perfect). But why? Why are these irrelevancies acceptable?

I ask: since the function of sport is to compete, why should all these excessive methods of competing be preferable over lesser, simpler versions?

What examples are you thinking of when you consider excessive methods of competing?

The Superbowl, for example. Cricket, football, soccer... just about any mainstream sport.


What examples would be simpler?

Ball-in-cup, skipping rope etc. Basically, anything that doesn't have such complex rules, equipment, as well as unnecessary waiting (e.gs. half-time, setting up for a play).


Track and pretty much any type of sport where two people beat each other up is as simple as it gets and these are still very popular. They just aren't as marketable or as easy to put on TV as some other events. Soccer seems about as simple as it gets too, and that's crazy popular everywhere but the US (and is arguably popular here too in many circles).

Track is simpler than soccer, yes, but think simpler. Reduce the function to its very core: competition, rather than competition, glamour, complicated rules...


Perhaps I'm just not understanding your point, so correct me if I have misunderstood it.

Think simpler


I think there will always be a place for simpler types of competition (certainly where there aren't large sums of money to invest in complexity - and certainly when it's a casual thing), but there's always going to be an advancement of it into team sports with ever increasing strategic elements. This has the effect of making it a more enjoyable spectator event as well as more enjoyable for its participants in many cases.

If the function of sport is to compete, and enjoyment can be had from that, then why have ever increasing strategic elements? They may be entertaining, but are not part of the competing, at least in an efficient way.


Simplicity has it's place, but as society evolves, so does the nature and potentially the complexity of it competitions.

I'm playing with the idea that this complexity is unnecessary, that it's involving flavours of ice-cream, rather than the function of ice-cream itself.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:45:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:43:51 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That's some fascinating taking control of sport you just did there, Zaroette. I have a different idea, though.

I knew you'd come and talk to me again, but I'll play along...


I think it's down to controlling our mortality that people take such enjoyment in sport, both on and off the field (or wherever else).

That might be a part of sport, but it's not the function. For example, there may be an opportunity to express disgust for an umpiring call, but you're not playing/watching the sport in order to see if the umpiring is good. But I think that I'm guessing slightly on this; am I right in responding this way?- am I addressing what you meant?

I don't know if any of you ever heard that story about soccer being invented by soldiers kicking decapitated heads around? Yeah, well, that.

I don't see why this is relevant. Interesting, nonetheless.

It's order, basically - like music, painting the walls of you house, etc.

Yes, people might like to make the game orderly, but that's not the reason the game exists.

It's said the Irish are the saddest of all people, that all our wars are merry and all our songs are sad. We're also all alcoholics. It's like truer sport, it's like women having long hair and nails and trying to love it, lol.

Embodying the competition element? Is that your point?

And now Zaroette puts an order to sport that puts her in control. Would you look at that?

How does this follow from what you've said above? Yes, humans like being in control, at least some of the time, and I'm not different. What's your point?



As regards the complexity of games... well, different things are taken into consideration.

Such as?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:45:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:43:51 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That's some fascinating taking control of sport you just did there, Zaroette. I have a different idea, though.

I knew you'd come and talk to me again, but I'll play along...

lol


I think it's down to controlling our mortality that people take such enjoyment in sport, both on and off the field (or wherever else).

That might be a part of sport, but it's not the function. For example, there may be an opportunity to express disgust for an umpiring call, but you're not playing/watching the sport in order to see if the umpiring is good. But I think that I'm guessing slightly on this; am I right in responding this way?- am I addressing what you meant?

I don't know if any of you ever heard that story about soccer being invented by soldiers kicking decapitated heads around? Yeah, well, that.

I don't see why this is relevant. Interesting, nonetheless.

It's order, basically - like music, painting the walls of you house, etc.

Yes, people might like to make the game orderly, but that's not the reason the game exists.

It's said the Irish are the saddest of all people, that all our wars are merry and all our songs are sad. We're also all alcoholics. It's like truer sport, it's like women having long hair and nails and trying to love it, lol.

Embodying the competition element? Is that your point?

And now Zaroette puts an order to sport that puts her in control. Would you look at that?

How does this follow from what you've said above? Yes, humans like being in control, at least some of the time, and I'm not different. What's your point?




As regards the complexity of games... well, different things are taken into consideration.

Such as?

Well, you didn't get anything of what I was saying, to be honest. It's not that sport is essentially competition, it's a controlling of the competition, making it something that people don't have to worry about. And so soccer grew out of war, a relieve from it, but along the same lines, reminiscent of what it is it's controlling. It's like how people watch horror movies, or TV shows about drug dealers, or anything like that - they're trying to make the most of a bad situation. We are the living dead, basically. As Da Vinci said: "While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:55:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And then Americans swarm around one of the most brutish and muscled sports that has ever existed. Coincidence? I think not.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 3:58:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:53:08 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 3:45:42 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:43:51 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
That's some fascinating taking control of sport you just did there, Zaroette. I have a different idea, though.

I knew you'd come and talk to me again, but I'll play along...

lol


I think it's down to controlling our mortality that people take such enjoyment in sport, both on and off the field (or wherever else).

That might be a part of sport, but it's not the function. For example, there may be an opportunity to express disgust for an umpiring call, but you're not playing/watching the sport in order to see if the umpiring is good. But I think that I'm guessing slightly on this; am I right in responding this way?- am I addressing what you meant?

I don't know if any of you ever heard that story about soccer being invented by soldiers kicking decapitated heads around? Yeah, well, that.

I don't see why this is relevant. Interesting, nonetheless.

It's order, basically - like music, painting the walls of you house, etc.

Yes, people might like to make the game orderly, but that's not the reason the game exists.

It's said the Irish are the saddest of all people, that all our wars are merry and all our songs are sad. We're also all alcoholics. It's like truer sport, it's like women having long hair and nails and trying to love it, lol.

Embodying the competition element? Is that your point?

And now Zaroette puts an order to sport that puts her in control. Would you look at that?

How does this follow from what you've said above? Yes, humans like being in control, at least some of the time, and I'm not different. What's your point?




As regards the complexity of games... well, different things are taken into consideration.

Such as?


Well, you didn't get anything of what I was saying, to be honest. It's not that sport is essentially competition, it's a controlling of the competition, making it something that people don't have to worry about. And so soccer grew out of war, a relieve from it, but along the same lines, reminiscent of what it is it's controlling. It's like how people watch horror movies, or TV shows about drug dealers, or anything like that - they're trying to make the most of a bad situation. We are the living dead, basically. As Da Vinci said: "While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die."

I'm more addressing why we're competing in the first place, but fine, I guess sport could be seen your way. I mean, if we didn't have the innate need to compete, then there would be no need to control it, right?

You're saying that the need to compete is bad, or at least that people see it as bad, and therefore feel the need to control it. You then say that I see it as bad, and in musing through these ideas, I'm demonstrating my need to control it, right? I think I understand what you're saying, now.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:13:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.

So animals don't compete for mating partners in the wild? Is that really nonsense? Is human psychology not built upon this? Is my natural attraction to stronger men "incredibly contrived?"
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:17:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:13:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.

So animals don't compete for mating partners in the wild? Is that really nonsense? Is human psychology not built upon this? Is my natural attraction to stronger men "incredibly contrived?"

It's contrived to take it as genetic, rather than processed after the fact. Think about it. Are you born with a lust for strong men and a fear of snakes already fully formed in your mind? Is it not more sensible that you're merely born a calculator and that these lusts and fears come secondary, as calculations rather than inherent?
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:21:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:17:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:13:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.

So animals don't compete for mating partners in the wild? Is that really nonsense? Is human psychology not built upon this? Is my natural attraction to stronger men "incredibly contrived?"

It's contrived to take it as genetic, rather than processed after the fact. Think about it. Are you born with a lust for strong men and a fear of snakes already fully formed in your mind? Is it not more sensible that you're merely born a calculator and that these lusts and fears come secondary, as calculations rather than inherent?

These genetic persuasions are developed, much as a child goes through puberty. Are you saying that simply because it is not inherent from the start, like the results/process of puberty, that it cannot be biological? I think you are, and I think that's wrong.

You have a think about that.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:26:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:21:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:13:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.

So animals don't compete for mating partners in the wild? Is that really nonsense? Is human psychology not built upon this? Is my natural attraction to stronger men "incredibly contrived?"

It's contrived to take it as genetic, rather than processed after the fact. Think about it. Are you born with a lust for strong men and a fear of snakes already fully formed in your mind? Is it not more sensible that you're merely born a calculator and that these lusts and fears come secondary, as calculations rather than inherent?

These genetic persuasions are developed, much as a child goes through puberty. Are you saying that simply because it is not inherent from the start, like the results/process of puberty, that it cannot be biological? I think you are, and I think that's wrong.

You have a think about that.

Thought about it: it's dumb. So you are saying you've been born with instincts to kill certain types of people, instincts to lust after certain types of people, instincts to compete in nonviolent ways for no benefit outside of the competition. You have the world in your head prior to your birth, basically. Yeah . . . no. It's much more sensible to view all human tendency as just calculated, with physical sensations being taken into account.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:27:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Pain hurts, it's a world of competition, competing successfully lessens the pain one is subjected to.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 4:36:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 4:26:33 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:21:54 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:17:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:13:08 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:10:40 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:08:45 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 4:00:07 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Who says there's an innate need to compete?

I do =)

It's biological. Animals compete for mates in the wild; I'm sure we did that in the past 'ourselves'.

Nonsense. That would be incredibly contrived. We have a will to live, most of us, and that suffices - it's what brings us to compete in this world of competition.

So animals don't compete for mating partners in the wild? Is that really nonsense? Is human psychology not built upon this? Is my natural attraction to stronger men "incredibly contrived?"

It's contrived to take it as genetic, rather than processed after the fact. Think about it. Are you born with a lust for strong men and a fear of snakes already fully formed in your mind? Is it not more sensible that you're merely born a calculator and that these lusts and fears come secondary, as calculations rather than inherent?

These genetic persuasions are developed, much as a child goes through puberty. Are you saying that simply because it is not inherent from the start, like the results/process of puberty, that it cannot be biological? I think you are, and I think that's wrong.

You have a think about that.

Thought about it: it's dumb. So you are saying you've been born with instincts to kill certain types of people, instincts to lust after certain types of people, instincts to compete in nonviolent ways for no benefit outside of the competition.

Lol, no. I'm saying that people are born with the hard-wiring to mature that way, in time. Through goodness knows how many years of evolution, I have been born with certain predispositions. I've been born with the potential to mature into a woman, who will physically change in certain ways and be attracted to the opposite sex. It's not that I've been programed to compete in nonviolent ways; it's also not that I have these tendencies from birth -- neither are even the contention I made. The contention was that humans are programed to compete; I wasn't arguing about what made them compete in certain ways, which is what you're doing, Doctor. I have been programed to compete for certain males once I reach a certain level of maturity, and since I have reached that stage, I am now attracted to them. THAT is biological.

It's much more sensible to view all human tendency as just calculated, with physical sensations being taken into account.

This occurs in conjunction with biological, or even by itself. However, it is not the same as innate biological tendencies. Some physical sensations have a biological origin.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:00:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, so rather than having the entire world in our heads, there's just the abstract drive to compete . . . and the rest is calculated? That's actually nonsense, though; sorry :P
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:06:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 5:00:29 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Oh, so rather than having the entire world in our heads, there's just the abstract drive to compete . . . and the rest is calculated? That's actually nonsense, though; sorry :P

This "abstract drive" has clear origins in evolution. Would you say that puberty is an abstract thing that is calculated?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:40:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:49:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Sport, as a concept, was designed for men to compete, as they once did in the wild for women. However, the bloody and dangerous competing done in the wild was incompatible with many ancient civilisations, as they intuitively knew that society would not function should these extreme competitions take place without restriction. This competition has, nowadays and in those, taken the form of elaborate and superfluous games,

Elaborate to what?

of which are relatively harmless (i.e. better, but not perfect).

I don't know what you're comparing to. What would be 'perfect'? Are you implying that sports are still harmful?

But why? Why are these irrelevancies acceptable?

Irrelevant from what? Are you saying that all games function to satiate a violent impulse? All competition, even?

I ask: since the function of sport is to compete, why should all these excessive methods of competing be preferable over lesser, simpler versions?

How are they excessive?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:50:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 5:40:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:49:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Sport, as a concept, was designed for men to compete, as they once did in the wild for women. However, the bloody and dangerous competing done in the wild was incompatible with many ancient civilisations, as they intuitively knew that society would not function should these extreme competitions take place without restriction. This competition has, nowadays and in those, taken the form of elaborate and superfluous games,

Elaborate to what?

Simpler games, like skipping with a rope.


of which are relatively harmless (i.e. better, but not perfect).

I don't know what you're comparing to. What would be 'perfect'? Are you implying that sports are still harmful?

I'm saying that they're still harmful, yes. A sport free of harm would be perfect.


But why? Why are these irrelevancies acceptable?

Irrelevant from what? Are you saying that all games function to satiate a violent impulse? All competition, even?

I'm saying that the basic function of sport is to allow people to compete.


I ask: since the function of sport is to compete, why should all these excessive methods of competing be preferable over lesser, simpler versions?

How are they excessive?

They are unnecessarily complicated in regards to the basic function of sport.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 5:57:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 5:06:28 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 5:00:29 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Oh, so rather than having the entire world in our heads, there's just the abstract drive to compete . . . and the rest is calculated? That's actually nonsense, though; sorry :P

This "abstract drive" has clear origins in evolution. Would you say that puberty is an abstract thing that is calculated?

There's a huge difference between puberty and the mind. It's not over-complex that puberty be completely of the world, so to speak, but necessary. The mind, on the other hand, becomes something hugely over-complex when regarded as something completely of the world (again, so to speak), where a simple calculator would suffice. Evolution does not go for the over-complex. It does not go for your abstract innateness of competition. It goes for simplicity which is efficiency, not beings with the entire world inside their heads prior to their birth. In any case, though it is possible that such a being exists, it does not seem to be the case with us.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:28:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There may very well be simple drives towards simple smells or such as regards reproduction, as one would assume to be the case with animals of lesser mechanicality; but none of these touch on anything so nonsensical as a drive towards competition, which is abstract in its entirety; and, moreover, one would be sensible to assume that even these drives have become redundant and disappeared in humanity a long time ago. The pain to go with maintaining proper functioning of the organism seems all that is necessary, sensible, or IS in making us what we are, along with the calculating mind - and, then, sometimes even that backfires as regards keeping us alive; self-destructive behaviours, for example.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:40:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think efficiency really applies here, because efficiency implies that a thing has some goal outside of itself. If we take the goal of anything as only it's output, then we should all just commit suicide now. I really don't like this Schopenhauerian notion that all aspects of life are things to be 'gotten over'.

The idea of sport is that it's enjoyable, so it's something people want to do, therefore not wanting to minimise it economically. If the goal is enjoyment, football is much more 'efficient' at supplying that than flipping a coin, because it's more enjoyable.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 8:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:40:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
I don't think efficiency really applies here, because efficiency implies that a thing has some goal outside of itself. If we take the goal of anything as only it's output, then we should all just commit suicide now. I really don't like this Schopenhauerian notion that all aspects of life are things to be 'gotten over'.

This is an incredibly large Slippery Slope argument. It's a discussion about efficiency because the primary goal of sport is to satisfy the natural predisposition of humans to compete. With this in mind, we currently have sports with are superfluous to this end, therefore they are inefficient. Conceding this point does not mean that we all need to kill ourselves.


The idea of sport is that it's enjoyable, so it's something people want to do, therefore not wanting to minimise it economically. If the goal is enjoyment, football is much more 'efficient' at supplying that than flipping a coin, because it's more enjoyable.

I would argue that enjoyment stems from satisfying the inner need for competition. But I'll ask you anyway: why do you think sport is enjoyable?
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 1:06:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 8:18:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:40:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
I don't think efficiency really applies here, because efficiency implies that a thing has some goal outside of itself. If we take the goal of anything as only it's output, then we should all just commit suicide now. I really don't like this Schopenhauerian notion that all aspects of life are things to be 'gotten over'.

This is an incredibly large Slippery Slope argument. It's a discussion about efficiency because the primary goal of sport is to satisfy the natural predisposition of humans to compete. With this in mind, we currently have sports with are superfluous to this end, therefore they are inefficient. Conceding this point does not mean that we all need to kill ourselves.

The logic of; if you want to compete, why not flip a coin rather than playing an elaborate game, is the same logic as, why live for years rather than a day? It leads to living the absolute minimal life, so I think the slippery slope argument is justified.

The idea of sport is that it's enjoyable, so it's something people want to do, therefore not wanting to minimise it economically. If the goal is enjoyment, football is much more 'efficient' at supplying that than flipping a coin, because it's more enjoyable.

I would argue that enjoyment stems from satisfying the inner need for competition.

And why should it be reduced to the most basic form? To what end?

But I'll ask you anyway: why do you think sport is enjoyable?

People do it for enjoyment, generally, so obviously it's found enjoyable. If there's some other goal, like fitness or money, then that answers your primary question anyway.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 1:16:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 3:38:48 AM, Zarroette wrote:

I think there will always be a place for simpler types of competition (certainly where there aren't large sums of money to invest in complexity - and certainly when it's a casual thing), but there's always going to be an advancement of it into team sports with ever increasing strategic elements. This has the effect of making it a more enjoyable spectator event as well as more enjoyable for its participants in many cases.

If the function of sport is to compete, and enjoyment can be had from that, then why have ever increasing strategic elements? They may be entertaining, but are not part of the competing, at least in an efficient way.


I believe I understand your point now. I'd agree that the competition is the point unto itself. However, taking it to it's base level doesn't satiate this competitive desire for those who want more complexity. As a child, tag and cup-in-ball, for example, might be sufficient, but as adults (and in a greater sense, as society evolves) we seek out greater (more complex) forms of competition. The more challenging, more involved, and more strategic the competition is, the greater sense of achievement can be gained from winning those competitions (complexity in this case isn't necessarily reserved only for rules either).

In this sense, it's not simply the competition, but the thrill of the competition and the thrill attainable through victory.


Simplicity has it's place, but as society evolves, so does the nature and potentially the complexity of it competitions.

I'm playing with the idea that this complexity is unnecessary, that it's involving flavours of ice-cream, rather than the function of ice-cream itself.

I think that your comparison to ice cream is an apt one. While it would certainly be sufficient in getting our ice cream fill by only having vanilla, we can make it better and thus more enjoyable by adding other elements to it, like chocolate and toppings. So I think you are correct in this sense that it isn't necessarily necessary, but it's ultimately for enjoyment, and this enjoyment in many ways is inherent in our competitive natures and we therefore strive to make it even more enjoyable.

What is enjoyable is naturally subjective. The types of sports enjoyed in the US are different than those enjoyed in other parts of the world. But there does seem to be a common quality of increasing the complexity to increase the enjoyment we derive from it, and that seems to ultimately be the purpose of increasingly complex types of competitions.

Ultimately, you may be correct that the simplest types of competitions are the most efficient. But at this point in history, we can move past base efficiency to things that are more enjoyable (both to participate in and spectate), which seem to ultimately involve more complexity.
Debate.org Moderator
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 1:56:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 1:06:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:18:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/18/2014 6:40:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
I don't think efficiency really applies here, because efficiency implies that a thing has some goal outside of itself. If we take the goal of anything as only it's output, then we should all just commit suicide now. I really don't like this Schopenhauerian notion that all aspects of life are things to be 'gotten over'.

This is an incredibly large Slippery Slope argument. It's a discussion about efficiency because the primary goal of sport is to satisfy the natural predisposition of humans to compete. With this in mind, we currently have sports with are superfluous to this end, therefore they are inefficient. Conceding this point does not mean that we all need to kill ourselves.

The logic of; if you want to compete, why not flip a coin rather than playing an elaborate game, is the same logic as, why live for years rather than a day? It leads to living the absolute minimal life, so I think the slippery slope argument is justified.

If the flipping of the coin results in the satisfaction, and exceeds that of the overall discomfort, then why not continue to live your live so as to generate a greater amount of overall satisfaction?

As you've projected the argument to its extreme form (life and death, as opposed to only a specific aspect), you've accrued extra variables bring about the problem of a slippery slope fallacy. By itself, the function of competition can be seen clearly as there are far fewer variables; the same cannot be said about your extension in life as a general construct. Remember, the function being fulfilled generates the satisfaction, in regards to competition; all else is superfluous.


The idea of sport is that it's enjoyable, so it's something people want to do, therefore not wanting to minimise it economically. If the goal is enjoyment, football is much more 'efficient' at supplying that than flipping a coin, because it's more enjoyable.

I would argue that enjoyment stems from satisfying the inner need for competition.

And why should it be reduced to the most basic form? To what end?

Because that would be most efficient; efficiency is the end.


But I'll ask you anyway: why do you think sport is enjoyable?

People do it for enjoyment, generally, so obviously it's found enjoyable. If there's some other goal, like fitness or money, then that answers your primary question anyway.

I'd say that these goals are products of the desire for competition. Perhaps people could compete purely for money, I'll give you that. But overall, the enjoyment extends from satisfying the need to compete.