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

Arrogance Is Necessary To Succeed

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,027 times Debate No: 49808
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Round Layout
1- Acceptance, No Arguments
2- Opening Statements, No Rebuttal
3- Rebuttals
4- Rebuttals
5- Conclusion, No New Arguments

Arrogance- Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
Success- The attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.

I will be arguing that arrogance is necessary to succeed and my opponent will argue the opposite.


there aren't 5 rounds...Well, that doesn't matter.
I accept your challenge..humbly.
Debate Round No. 1


Wow I forgot to put 5 rounds, I apologize. And hahah.

Simply put, in part because I forgot to have 5 rounds, arrogance is an over confidence. I can speak from experience as I am 16, accepted to college, and am going to graduate from high school a year early. This being said, I have the feeling that arrogance comes with the territory and in turn helps me maintain myself as I do not want people to see me failing after I have been arrogant. Confidence in yourself leads to a bigger strive for success and if there is an over-confidence it will put you at a higher boost and help you better yourself and your success. You can see this with people like some celebrities and business owners who are unargueably successful. Therefore, arrogance is a key to success.


Although arrogance may help, it is not necessary. As put in, arrogant means "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud" as well as "characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement". However, both of these are extremely negative. Over-confidence is actually the most cliched flaw, but a good one too, as it causes heroes to fall from a high point, one famous hero known as Oedipus. His over-confidence and stubbornness contributed to his great fall from being a respected king to a poor exiled old man on the streets.
I will take this example and put it against you: Oedipus was trying to help himself and the people, so he confidently and courageously went forth and defeated the Sphinx. In this case, he was not arrogant, he was only confident enough to defeat the Sphinx. He smartly and calmly stood against the monster and defeated it. Had he been arrogant he probably would not have defeated the mighty monster. "Oh, your riddles have no chance against me!" Would have only angered the Sphinx. Within his overconfidence he is overcome with the illusion that he will succeed even when he has not even started to succeed. While you may not agree, I also point out that you made the logical fallacy of slippery slope--you say confidence will give you a boost and because of this, over-confidence will give you a higher boost. But in most cases, this is not true--too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
If you still doubt me I shall conclude in the third round.
Meanwhile I will continue the story to prove my point.
"very well, here's the riddle: [insert riddle]" The Sphinx says.
"Ha! That's too easy! I'll figure it out super quickly!" Arrogant Oedipus states.
"Then do it faster!" The Sphinx screams, already having its mouth open and bloody jaw in Oedipus's face.
Oedipus bursts out in laughter. "I doubt your teeth will do so much as a cut to me!"
*Sphinx eats Oedipus while Oedipus is attempting to mock the Sphinx*
as you can see over-confidence did NOT help him succeed in this case, but rather it ended in Arrogant Oedipus's death.
I conclude round 2. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, because I forgot to set this debate to 5 rounds, I suppose this is my closing argument.

The story of Oedipus is a fictitious story, perhaps to show the consequences of being to arrogant. However, arrogance in moderation will lead to better production which will in turn lead to more success.

Thanks for the debate, you brought up a strong point.


Arrogance has no "moderation". Bumped down and deleted the word "over", and you become confidence. There is a difference between the two words: arrogance is much stronger and extreme and most times is negative connotation, while confidence is strong, but a positive connotation.
Much can be said about the two words, but as I have summed up in the last round--arrogance is pushing confidence to a new level.
In conclusion, arrogance is not required for success. In fact, most times it will ruin the success. If You were far too arrogant, setting the debate to merely 3 rounds that give you less probability to win compared to 5 rounds, it ruined your success. Of course, I have no say about whether or not you were arrogant when you were starting the debate. Nevertheless I have proved my point. Very confidently, but not arrogantly, I say "I will win. I can do it." If I were arrogant I would have lost conduct to you, my opponent. Conduct is crucial in this debate.
Thank you too.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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