The Instigator
Amphia
Pro (for)
The Contender
TPPDJT
Con (against)

Any topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TPPDJT 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: Select Winner
Started: 3/16/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 110853
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Amphia

Pro

Could you pick 1 or 2 topics that we could debate? I would really like to debate you.

I am generally pretty liberal on things if that helps.

First round is proposing the topics. 2nd round is me choosing one and giving the first argument.
TPPDJT

Con

  1. Lord of the Flies is a GREAT book
  2. Obama was a bad president
  3. The EU is bad
  4. Globalism is bad
  5. Free Trade is bad
  6. "Russiagate" is sensationalist propaganda
  7. Same sex schools are bad for all concerned (I could actually debate this)
  8. Donald Trump sucks as a President (I could actually debate this)
  9. Should students be paid for having good grades? (I could actually debate this)


Extras:
  1. TPPDJT has the greatest profile picture of all time.
  2. TPPDJT is the greatest username of all time.
  3. TPPDJT is part of the Illuminati


Being serious, if none of these are your cup of tea I'd be willing to reverse roles in this.



Thanks again!



Debate Round No. 1
Amphia

Pro

Could I be Con if you don't mind? If you do mind, we can redo the debate.

Lord of the is a Great book

1. Themes

The themes of Lord of the Flies are annoying.

One theme is the idea that all humans have innate savage impulses. This is something I disagree with wholeheartedly because this implies that humans are innately anything. In my view, humans are born as blank canvases that are shaped by external circumstances. Some things are nature rather than nurture but savagery is not one of them. We as humans have defined savagery according to our modern principles. Nowadays, throwing a spear at someone might be considered "savage". But in ancient times, this was simply a way of carrying out business. "Savagery" is objective, thus is it what we call "nurture" not "nature".

Another theme is the idea of civilization. The boys were "civilized" until they landed ont he island and their "innate savagery" took over. The words "civilization" and "civilized" bother me very much because they are so pointed towards Western "civilization". How, you might ask? Well, with imperialsm and the rise of the pseudo-science, Social Darwinism, Western powers began to see themselves as more "civilized' than the Africans and Asians. Especially the Africans. They saw these people as savages who needed Europe to come and "save" them from themselves. And now, people say things like "civilized world" to describe countries like America and whatnot, as if being Western means you are civilized.

Yes, the boys had a war but how does that make them savages? We have wars now, we kill people, civilians and soldiers alike. We bomb cities, knowing there are children in them but not caring.

Yes, the boys ate raw meat but how does that make them uncivilized either? In some countries, such as Ethiopia (which is in Africa by the way--seeing the pattern here?), some ethnic groups eat raw meat because they developed immunity against the viruses of raw meat. It doens't mean they're savages as much as people would like you to believe.

Yes, the boys danced around a fire, singing about some god or other (I don't remember exactly what they singing about). But again, Christians sing in a Church about a God who sent animals 2by2 onto a boat that was constructed by a 400-year-old and then sent his pure son who was God but also was not God to die for our sins.

2. Meaning

The book was basically a metaphor for society. I think the author tried too hard to drive that point home. Simon was the Christ-figure--he died. Piggy was knowledge--he died. Percival was innocence--he forgot his name. Jack was evil--he didn't die unfortunately. Basically, the book was too easy.

Okay, now moving on to a more humorous debate:

TPPDJT has the greatest profile picture of all time.

No he doesn't! Why? Three reasons:

Man
Okay, who is the man? Who is he? Some 17th century aristocrat? Actually, he probably is which proves that my opponent supports white supremacy and patriarchy! You can't vote for my opponent if he's racist!

Illuminati
Obviously my opponent has ties to a secret Bavarian society which I find to be very suspicius. What does he know? What is he hiding? If he does actually know information we don't, why does he hide it? Why is he so selfish?

Supreme
Okay, the Supreme sign is just weird. It doesn't even fit the time period of the rest of the profile picture! That's inconsistency which according to Freud is an indicator of an inconsistent lifestyle. My opponent probably never finishes anything he does! He probably won't even finish this debate!

ON TO ME
Clearly, my profile picture is the superior one. It's a pretty anime girl. Who doesn't like pretty anime girls?
TPPDJT

Con

Sure, no need to restart the debate.
----------------------------------------
Part I
I will now address each point made by opponent.

The themes of Lord of the Flies are annoying.

Okay.

One theme is the idea that all humans have innate savage impulses (etc.).

I feel as though you are ignoring the matter at hand in this section, whether The Lord of the Flies is a good book. You speak at great lengths about the concept of humans not having savage impulses, something that does not relate to The Lord of the Flies. While this concept is present, your argument does not pertain to whether it makes The Lord of the Flies a good book. In this case, I believe the fallacy of you being not even wrong comes into play, as your argument is neither correct or incorrect (that humans don't have savage impulses.)

Another theme is the idea of civilization (etc.).

Again, you barely tie this into how The Lord of the Flies is a good book or not. Instead, you launch into a long rant about you opposition to the words "civilization" and "civilized" while not referencing the book at all. I find it hard to argue with your opinions on these matters as they are not what we are discussing.

Yes, the boys had a war but how does that make them savages?

I'm most likely copying my opponent by inserting an irrelevant opinion into the debate, but war is a fundamentally savage concept. The killing of one another is not certainly a civilized one.

Yes, the boys ate raw meat but how does that make them uncivilized either? In some countries, such as Ethiopia (which is in Africa by the way--seeing the pattern here?), some ethnic groups eat raw meat because they developed immunity against the viruses of raw meat. It doesn't mean they're savages as much as people would like you to believe.

Once again, I fail to understand what you're argument is. You imply the boys on the island are savages for eating raw meat, but this can be interpreted as them being savage or not savage.

2. Meaning

The book was basically a metaphor for society. I think the author tried too hard to drive that point home. Simon was the Christ-figure--he died. Piggy was knowledge--he died. Percival was innocence--he forgot his name. Jack was evil--he didn't die unfortunately. Basically, the book was too easy.

The central theme for The Lord of the Flies are the conflicting human impulses toward civilisation and social organisation—living by rules, peacefully and in harmony—and toward the will to power as defined by Nietzsche.

I can prove this because in many parts of the book these ideas come into play. The beginning of the book has boys establish a form of democracy by declaring that whoever holds the conch shall also be able to speak at their formal gatherings and receive the attentive silence of the larger group. This would represent a form of social organisation, also living by a set of rules. This is also supported by Ralph's credo to have fun, to survive, and to constantly maintain a smoke signal so that a means of rescue could be ascertained. Again, this represents peace and harmony.

Later on, as the boy's baser human instincts begin to kick in, Jack forms his own tribe and they subsequently paint their faces (as many other tribes throughout history have done) and also begin to start rites related to the "beast" of the island and subsequently offer sacrifices to it. Jacks followers later believe that glasses of "Piggy" are the true source of power on the island, another false notion. After more subsequent events, we can conclude that Jack becomes a sadistic autocrat and reduces his band to mere "savages" as some would say. This is evidenced by his killing of Piggy and subsequent torture of Sam and Eric. In his desperate quest for power, Jack decides that burning the entire island just to kill Ralph would be his best option. Of course, this all reinforces the concept of "The Will to Power" and society breaking down into a form of anarchy.

Basically, the book was too easy.

I disagree. The argument can be made that the story also includes the tension between group think and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions (difference between the beginning and ending of the book), and between morality and immorality. The aforementioned concept above remains the same. The understanding of such concepts is certainly no easy task.


Part II
The Lord of the Flies is a good book

After having responded to my opponent, I will now very briefly attempt to prove why The Lord of the Flies is a good book definitely worth reading.

The Lord of the Flies is considered a classic by many intellectuals, authors, and others and is often required reading in school. If it were a "bad" book, why would such prestige be placed upon it?

Fundamental philosophical questions, such as (already mentioned) morality vs. immorality, individualism vs. collectivism, rational vs. emotional reactions, order vs. chaos, and (in my opinion) faith vs. nihilism come into play through the course of the story. Most books of our time do little to engage the reader in such deep and wide ranging questions as this. While perhaps not done perfectly, The Lord of the Flies manages to symbolize these ideas to an extent.

Part III
Accolades and recognition


    1. Awarded a place on both lists of Modern Library 100 Best Novels


      1. 41 on the editors list and 25 on the readers list


    1. Chosen by TIME magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to 2005
    1. The novel was listed at number 70 on the BBC's survey The Big Read.
    1. Stephen King, usually considered one of the greatest horror authors of all time, considered the book to be one of his favorites.


More could be added, but the idea remains the same- The Lord of the Flies is a popular book and has been given its place on these lists for not being a bad book, but for being one that challenges the mind. In other words, it is a good book.

Part IV
Sources (in no particular order)


https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://mentalfloss.com...
https://eyeoflynx.wordpress.com...
https://www.theguardian.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
https://study.com...
https://learningandcreativity.com...


Okay, now moving on to a more humorous debate (As Amphia would say):

Man
I think you do not approve of my profile picture because you are jealous of how handsome Kant is, no? It is a crime he never married.

Illuminati (Eye of Providence, get it right)
I do have ties to a secret Barvarian society. In fact, I know so many things that I must hide them from the general public. In fact, if I were to reveal these secrets society as we know it would collapse, believe me.

Supreme
Bro, how do you not like Supreme? Supreme is literally the greatest brand known to man. In fact, I think you are jealous that you don't have one in your profile picture. How do you get one? It's an illuminati secret, duh.

ON TO YOU
Anime is a cancer on western society. In fact, I think you are a part of an Asian plot to enforce anime everywhere in the world. How else does this explain your anime profile picture?

I don't like pretty anime girls because they're ANIME.
In short, A Kant X Supreme X Eye of Providence profile picture > a profile picture designed to brainwash youth into believing anime are pretty.


NOTE: I apologise if the formatting is messed up, this was not my intention obviously.




Debate Round No. 2
Amphia

Pro

Part I
I am sorry my points were not clear. The reason I mentioned the themes of the book was because they made me hate it. Along with the disgusting nature of some scenes but that’s kind of a weak argument.

My main point was that the themes, the beliefs held by the author that showed through the story, made the book bad.

Regarding the meaning of the book, you just drove home my point that it was about society. Maybe for some, the book was a wonderful read and really provoked them intellectually but for me, I saw it coming before it did. I could already tell where it was going which ruined the thrill of reading. I knew it was going to be about the details of society and what happens when society comes head to head with the forces of “savage” nature and “baser instincts”.

Actually, I lied.

The one thing I didn’t see coming was when they raped a pig with a spear. :l

Part II
My opponent makes the mistake of using an argument that appeals to authority. He says that since many intellectuals, authors, and poets enjoyed the book, it has to be good, right? I don’t think this is a valid argument because basing the goodness (for lack of a better word) of a book by the people who read it is a kind of a fallacy.

My opponent also talks about how the book incorporates many philosophical questions and since most books of our time don’t do that, this makes Lord of the Flies a good book.

Maybe I’m dumbing down the argument a little but I wouldn’t argue that many books of our time don’t incorporate philosophical ideas. Also, even if they don’t, I don’t really think the author handled these philosophical ideas very well anyway, at least not to the extent that I’d say: “Well, it was very ‘deep’ so I guess it’s a good book!”

Part III

I think we should be careful not to mix up popular with good. Maybe that’s a little radical but just because something is popular does not mean it is good. I mean, come on, Gone with the Wind had some racist themes but everyone LOVED that book. It won tons of awards and was made into a movie.

NOW ON TO THE MORE HUMOROUS DEBATE (AS AMPHIA WHICH IS MYSELF WOULD SAY)

Man
Me? Jealous? Oh please, I’ve seen better looking 17th-18th century Europeans. Lord Byron is far more handsome—and I HATE Lord Byron. And have you seen the paintings of Kant when he got old? He looks so…old.

Eye of Providence (Fine, jeez, no need to be subtle.)
I call lies. You’re just keeping the secrets to yourself because you’re selfish. And you’re racist and sexist too. Quite the triple threat, eh?

Supreme
I don’t need a Supreme. You’re clearly overcompensating. And anyone who votes should remember that the Supreme does not fit the time period of the profile picture. I explained that this sort of inconsistency transfers to lifestyle and my opponent did not refute his. Expect a forfeit everyone. Smh.



ON TO ME

The only reason my opponent hates anime is because of his silly Western superiority-complex. Anime is wonderful. And if Asians were really trying to enforce anime around the world, don’t you think we—sorry they--would have done it by now?

My opponent is lying when he says he doesn’t like pretty anime girls. The only reason he added the Supreme (which is more modern than the rest of his profile picture) was to impress the modern anime girl in my profile picture. Just so you know, she isn’t impressed.

All in all, my profile picture is better because it’s appealing to the eye and not offensive in any way.


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
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
TPPDJT
Perhaps we could restart?
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
That's fine.
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
TPPDJT
Apologies, but I might not be able to respond in time.
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
TPPDJT
@Amphia

When typing a response highlight whatever portion you want and do ctrl + b simultaneously.

I think there's an option to switch to switch to rich text or something so that you can see the various formatting options.
Posted by Amphia 3 years ago
Amphia
How did you get some words to be bold?
Posted by TPPDJT 3 years ago
TPPDJT
debate.org didn't even bother saving my bullet points smh
This debate has 2 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.