Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#4414
Society is dysfunctional
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
2
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Society has, up to this point, proved to be driven upon social reaction rather than proaction. Whether that would be through wars or using idealistic mental beliefs that suspend logic in order to cope with the fear of being abandoned by society.
While there seems to be a trend that the degree of volatility has decreased through history, false mental beliefs are still at large. For example, in the Western World, Feminism, which, by the movements name itself implies that it desires superiority over the male counterpart, has largely been an excuse for a majority of women in western culture to begin pushing anti-social behaviours as social. Such as sexual promiscuity as being a freedom of expression rather than a manipulative strategy to gain social power. The only reason ideologies like this exist is due to the systematic oppression that once existed in the past, just like the enslavement of Africans by the West. However, there no longer exists systematic oppression of either of these two social groups and therefore, fixating on people who are potentially showing a similar belief in the aforementioned, now abolished systems, shows nothing less than an effort to socially intimidate. Anti-social behaviours aren’t exclusive to a gender or ethnicity, so protesting against a sub-category of anti-social behaviour or a victim of anti-social behaviour indicates nothing less than someone who is actively using said anti-social behaviours to quell their own paranoia.
Every human is born with the intent of being socially proactive. It is only when one is met with another who shows that they’re unwilling to be proactive, specifically those who are closest to them in their life, that they belief in the notion that being reactive is more beneficial to their cause of preventing social exile.
While there seems to be a trend that the degree of volatility has decreased through history, false mental beliefs are still at large. For example, in the Western World, Feminism, which, by the movements name itself implies that it desires superiority over the male counterpart, has largely been an excuse for a majority of women in western culture to begin pushing anti-social behaviours as social. Such as sexual promiscuity as being a freedom of expression rather than a manipulative strategy to gain social power. The only reason ideologies like this exist is due to the systematic oppression that once existed in the past, just like the enslavement of Africans by the West. However, there no longer exists systematic oppression of either of these two social groups and therefore, fixating on people who are potentially showing a similar belief in the aforementioned, now abolished systems, shows nothing less than an effort to socially intimidate. Anti-social behaviours aren’t exclusive to a gender or ethnicity, so protesting against a sub-category of anti-social behaviour or a victim of anti-social behaviour indicates nothing less than someone who is actively using said anti-social behaviours to quell their own paranoia.
Every human is born with the intent of being socially proactive. It is only when one is met with another who shows that they’re unwilling to be proactive, specifically those who are closest to them in their life, that they belief in the notion that being reactive is more beneficial to their cause of preventing social exile.
Con
#2
Society is dysfunctional
This statement is not only untrue, but is essentially impossible.
Define Dysfunctional
a: not functioning properly : marked by impaired or abnormal functioningb: characterized by abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction
Knowingly that we are talking about only 1 large-scale society as Pro outlined, and dysfunctional suggests the meaning of "abnormal" or "impaired", the title's associated Pro position would therefore represent the idea of:
Society deviates from the social norm.
As unhealthiness and impairment suggests a deviation from the social norm.
Except that is impossible: If we are talking about the whole society here(Do we even know any other societies out there? It is clear that none of them are credible evidence), it could not deviate from the social norm as one entity could not equal to the opposite of itself(or "not itself"). Society cannot deviate from itself without first being a linguistic oxymoron and lose practical meaning.
All Pro's examples do not need response because they aren't even supporting the topic statement, as the topic is impossible to even be supported meaningfully. I rest my case.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The whole basis of your counter argument is that we need another society in order to compare it the ones that exist on earth?
It is entirely possible for societies to be dysfunctional, and exactly is the case with all that currently and have existed, due to the fact that anti-social behaviours persist in them.
is social normality, or what is deemed as normal based upon the most common behaviour within society, is what you deem to be functional or right?
I’m not sure if you’re involved in debates for the right reason, your debate history and biography do not illicit the interests of someone trying to understand the opposing party to reach a solution to the topic presented, moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate.
Con
#4
rebuttals
The whole basis of your counter argument is that we need another society in order to compare it the ones that exist on earth?
Wrong. Any attribute from a society cannot deviate from the society itself because otherwise it would not be an attribute of the society. "Dysfunctional" suggests social abnormality, which the point was dropped, and as general social attributes cannot be socially abnormal whatsoever, the topic is tautologically disproven.
It is entirely possible for societies to be dysfunctional, and exactly is the case with all that currently and have existed, due to the fact that anti-social behaviours persist in them.
Present your definition entry, then we proceed.
is social normality, or what is deemed as normal based upon the most common behaviour within society, is what you deem to be functional or right?
Irrelevant. Society cannot be socially abnormal just as a car cannot be non-vehicular and a person cannot be abiotic. It is simple: When it is socially dysfunctional, it is no longer about the society, meaning that it is impossible for the society to be socially dysfunctional.
I’m not sure if you’re involved in debates for the right reason, your debate history and biography do not illicit the interests of someone trying to understand the opposing party to reach a solution to the topic presented, moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate.
Yes. Man up and deal with it. Nowhere in the description outlaws my interpretation, so just go with it.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Since you’ve freely admitted that you’re not in this debate for a solution to the topic, I’m not entirely sure if persisting forward is of worth to either of us. However, I’ll entertain your points in the hopes that some logical may persist over your desire for social approval. I hope you understand the irony in your approach to this debate in relation to the topic.
Society - Definition: The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Dysfunctional - Definition: not operating normally or properly.
Alternative definition: unable to deal adequately with normal social relations.
None of my previous points contradict either of these two definitions relative to the subject of discussion.
Being anti-social is a social abnormality, of which I have already stated, no one is born being. It’s not in one’s own interest or societies interest to be so, however much said an anti-social individual would believe so.
You seem to be wholly misunderstanding of what it is I am trying to portray. A car can be faulty just like a human can be. Just because a human is anti-social doesn’t mean they’re any less human but it does make them a less optimal person.
Con
#6
Rebuttals
Since you’ve freely admitted that you’re not in this debate for a solution to the topic, I’m not entirely sure if persisting forward is of worth to either of us.
Untrue, I am indeed trying to prove myself to be correct here.
Dysfunctional - Definition: not operating normally or properly.Alternative definition: unable to deal adequately with normal social relations.
The lower entry was not provided sources so we don't know if Pro made it up to prove a point. We literally don't know.
None of my previous points contradict either of these two definitions relative to the subject of discussion.
Except it violates directly the upper entry, as the entire society couldn't have a quality that deviates from, ahem ahem, the entire society, just like the mean of a normal distribution couldn't be on the left of the median: Because were either of the outcomes true, the conditions would be questionable.
Being anti-social is a social abnormality, of which I have already stated, no one is born being. It’s not in one’s own interest or societies interest to be so, however much said an anti-social individual would believe so.
Indeed. An individual can be dysfunctional and abnormal because of individual anti-social behavior; nevertheless, such cannot apply to the entire society in that if the representative majority portion of the societal population is anti-social somehow, it would not be abnormal, it becomes the norm.
That is basically it. When the norm of a society shifts, that just means it shifts, not that that society becomes dysfunctional.
You seem to be wholly misunderstanding of what it is I am trying to portray. A car can be faulty just like a human can be. Just because a human is anti-social doesn’t mean they’re any less human but it does make them a less optimal person.
Correct. However, just because something coherently applies to possible individuals does not mean it can as well adequately apply to the entire collection of individuals. This can be demonstrated by the second entry provided by Pro with questionable bonafide:
unable to deal adequately with normal social relations.
In which subsets of a society can deal with social relations(such as a person, two people, etc.), but a entire society dealing with social relations is incoherent. This is as social relations are intrasocial, meaning that it must be among at least 2 non-null subsets within the population that each aren't equivalent.
Why must it be non-equivalent among subsets? Because if a group counts as two separate entities within a social interactions, that would just mean there are two subgroups being different and not acting like the same faction within. In other words, if two subsets are equal in an example of social interaction, what is really effective are two smaller non-equal subsets. Besides, if in the interaction a group participating is entirely included by another group holding a different position, then effectively, the smaller subset can be treated as outside the bigger one. These examples can be seen everywhere, such as lawsuits of 1 employee vs the company, when in reality it is just the employee versus the higherups, in which the employee is not.
What is society? The full set. All sets of people are essentially subsets of the set representing the entire society. Said set cannot engage in any interaction with anything outside it, so no normal social relations can be effectively attributed to "the entire society" even if they can take place within said society.
Conclusions
- The society cannot be "not normal" because it is the entire collection of individuals and if the societal norm shifts, it is still "normal".
- Society cannot engage in social relations, let alone be inadequate in so, even if individuals could.
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven wrong.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Then you need to make up your mind because you’ve contradicted yourself to whether you’re in this debate for a solution or to argue for arguments sake.
If you’d taken five minutes out of your day to look up ‘dysfunctional’ as a term, you would have likely found my source, which is by Oxford Languages.
Again, you’re contradicting yourself. The following (and previous) definitions are supplied by Oxford Languages.
Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Dysfunctional: not operating normally or properly.
I’ve stated before, that humans aren’t born to be anti-social and that it’s a learned behaviour. By me saying that the majority of people, and the way societies systems function, are inherently anti-social, does not contradict or invalidate the title. People being anti-social and systems that perpetuate it, harm the order of society and potentially cause the formation of society, and the human race, to die out.
Con
#8
Rebuttals
whether you’re in this debate for a solution or to argue for arguments sake.
To argue for arguments sake, which has never been wrong and has in fact worked.
If you’d taken five minutes out of your day to look up ‘dysfunctional’ as a term, you would have likely found my source, which is by Oxford Languages.
The statement here would also give rationality to entire situations of buffoon, assuming Pro is giving his lack of source citing prior to this round an excuse.
For example:
Archivist: How can we help you?Me: I have a historical copy of this book written by the original author himself.Archivist: And where is it?Me: Well, if you have the time to scrutinize my house, you would have found it.
For another example:
Journal: You forgot to properly cite this published paper on your paper right here, you need to correct this mistake before I can consider publishing it.Me: It is a well-known study that everyone knows about, if you know any better, you should be able to look it up for yourself instead of whining!
The problem is that as this is a debate, the voters are not obligated to search up what a definition of what word is, just like the judge on a court is supposed to listen to both lawyers present the evidence, and not be a spy and gather their own information. Before Pro presents what source the definition it came from(which of course, now Pro did attempt to offer the source it came from, from Oxford, although there is no dictionary called "Oxford Languages"), all that requires citation should be considered, well, NOT cited, and the quantity of impact a point brings shall adjust accordingly.
Society: the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.Dysfunctional: not operating normally or properly.
Well yes, but the fact that intersocial socialization is oxymoronically impossible, means that the entire society cannot be "not normal" or "not proper" because what defines "normal" or "proper" is entirely within the society itself, and society cannot deviate from itself for reasons explained.
I’ve stated before, that humans aren’t born to be anti-social and that it’s a learned behaviour.
That proves nothing. Humans are not "born" to use mobile phones and travel via public transport or their own cars as opposed to their feet and two long legs. Usage of mobile phones and transit vehicles are learned behavior, yet we consider that normal.
Oh yeah, what's the point? That the cited quote above proves no point.
By me saying that the majority of people, and the way societies systems function, are inherently anti-social, does not contradict or invalidate the title.
Are you saying...that the majority of people or the inherent mode of society...are antisocial? Either that, or this sentence is incoherent.
"that the majority of people, and the way societies systems function, are inherently anti-social"
This is the subject.
"does not contradict or invalidate"
This is the verb.
"the title"
This is the object.
So...This sentence is not only hard to decipher, but is at war with the rest of the argument, as well as the base set up from previous rounds. As well, this claim has no backing, not even logical reasoning.
Conclusions
- Extend previous arguments as they still stand.
- The society cannot be "not normal" because it is the entire collection of individuals and if the societal norm shifts, it is still "normal".
- Society cannot engage in social relations, let alone be inadequate in so, even if individuals could.
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven wrong.
Round 5
Con
#10
- Extend previous arguments as they still stand.
- The society cannot be "not normal" because it is the entire collection of individuals and if the societal norm shifts, it is still "normal".
- Society cannot engage in social relations, let alone be inadequate in so, even if individuals could.
- Therefore, the topic statement is proven wrong.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro could have won. Both parties had good arguments, but got hung up on defining "dysfunctional".
Had Pro pressed for a more clear idea such as "society is not functioning as well as it could" , Pro could have won.
Because Pro forfeited a rounds, I sadly award points to Con
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
This is an interesting debate, although the question of "dysfunctional" provokes an interesting subdebate:
That "subdebate" was more or so like this
> CON says dysfunctional is not functioning properly, but there is no social norm because only 1 society exists (logic is correct here)
> PRO implies that more than one society exists, and thus our society can be dysfunctional due to anti-social behaviors
> CON asks PRO to define dysfunctional
> PRO defines dysfunctional and society, proving that they don't contradict and an individual human can be dysfunctional per PRO's definition
> CON questions PRO's source of definition
> PRO mentions that a google search reveals that Oxford Languages provided the definition
However, CON provided his definition of dysfunctional in round 1, without a source? (lol)
Yet I'd say CON would win the "subdebate" here since he pointed out that it is unreasonable to assume a source when not provided.
I'd suggest to PRO next debate to a) define necessary terms within the first round itself and b) provide sources (links) to where the definition came from.
CON also repeats that 1 society cannot be abnormal because there is only 1 society, and that would be considered "normal society".
CON satisfied his BOP. PRO has not yet because he mainly just argues the definition of dysfunctional, rather than actually arguing how society is dysfunctional.
Also PRO, when you say CON's debate intentions are "moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate."
... Definitions, topic statements, a true meaning of a title need to be adequately defined for a debate to resume, this is usually done by the R1 instigator since that is the first actual words of a debate.
CON wins here since he had the better argument and PRO ff'ed R5.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
bump