CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is a genius for you?
Everyone knows that IQ tests and Academic grades are not the basis for being a genius. Its all about the creativity. And by creativity, it is often misunderstood. What is your misunderstanding of being a genuis?
But the man who created the nuke is hailed as "The smartest man in the world"
I don't reject that, those people weren't intelligent in their own way as well, however, Einstein understood reality, knew more about the universe, everything known to us, is what he specialized in understanding a little bit more about. Albert Einstein didn't want to create a nuke, he was trying to understand how atoms worked and that knowledge happened to be useful for creating a nuke. Albert Einstein was actually pretty anti-war after that, and seemed as though he regretted what his science was used for. Those people in their own right are intelligent as well.
"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend the rest of it's life believing that it is stupid." - Albert Einstein.
When people think of Einstein they first think of gravity. Thats about it. A bunch of people don't know who created the atom bomb because they don't care.
Your link is about the true make up of the atomic bomb. E=MC^2 applies to many things along with the atomic bomb but he didn't create that thing by himself. He wanted to end the war. Still nobody really cares. In the end Einstein is a true genius.
Actually, he encourage the development of the bomb.
He said in a letter to Nils Bohr, "When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life."
He was a pacifist who supported all kinds of anti-war movements. But even he was aware of his knowledge. His regret was not about his theory being used for murder, but how he made crossed the line where science can no longer be freely shared
"Actually, he encourage the development of the bomb
.
He said in a letter to Nils Bohr, "When the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life."
We know that. He still wanted to end the war. What are you trying to say? Because you arent doing much. His theories made him a genius. I have no clue what you are arguing.
Yet, in the end, Einstein is still remembered as the who created a weapon of mass destruction.
Which means that the world values his ability to kill more than to save lives. Whats your opinion?
However if you ask people if Einstein had that intent I think most of them would say no, therefore they don't value the intelligence to create weapons over the intelligence to create peace. Albert Einstein was considered intelligent because of his ability to comprehend reality on another level, which reality is related to all things that are real. There are different intelligences, everyone has "intelligence" there are simply different types of intelligence, even the intelligence on how to live is an intelligence. Albert Einstein is a genius when it comes to understand reality, he didn't specialize in making weapons, his understanding in reality and the knowledge he obtained about reality was used to make a weapon. As one whom is quite fond of Einstein, I do think at least in his own way more intelligent, not many people were able to revolutionize physics, more people however can figure out how to greatly influence the world towards peace.
However if you ask people if Einstein had that intent I think most of them would say no, therefore they don't value the intelligence to create weapons over the intelligence to create peace
-Then explain how there are thousands of articles explaining how Einstein lead the creation of the A-bomb but barely anything about his contributions to the Anti-war movements.
We all know how he uses his wisdom to the safest way and of how he regreted his actions.
The argument is how we saw his creations for murder. And how we see people who fights for peace as a threat.
-Then explain how there are thousands of articles explaining how Einstein lead the creation of the A-bomb but barely anything about his contributions to the Anti-war movements.
Simple, Einstein couldn't contribute to world peace like he did mistakenly to the A-bomb. What did Einstein do significantly for world peace? This however does not mean that Einstein is automatically associated with the A-bomb, now I noticed you stated you are from a different culture than the western culture, but most people I know associate Einstein with his contributions to physics significantly more than the A-bomb.
The argument is how we saw his creations for murder. And how we see people who fights for peace as a threat.
Which one is the bigger genius?
Einstein, because there has been less people to revolutionize physics than there has been people to revolutionize society. I think for the most part we see his creations for murder as negative, we don't think highly of it. I also don't know many people who see people who fight for peace as a threat.
No man, my point is that, if people does values his works as a material for peae, then we will be spending more time in studying his contributions against war than his contributions in favor of it
Einstein, because there has been less people to revolutionize physics than there has been people to revolutionize society.
-sigh
I can see exactly why society still hasn't develop itself.
We all know that science grows by the minute and grows fast. But society does not. Up until now, the concept of discrimination and lagalization of immoral acts is still under debates. Unlike science whose contradicting works are debatable only by the number of evidences, the concept of societies morality and its grey areas are abstract. And it takes more than words to understand it, much more to revolutionize the world
His theories helped further the creation for it and apparently this means that he created it. Nobody thinks Einstein created it because truly he barely did anything. We remember him because he was so smart. His photoelectric effect and theory or relativity earned him a grand title.
Maybe you did. I certainly didn't learn that. I can probably blame the school for that, but you should learn not to impose your own values and experiences upon others and assume them to be true for those people.
My whole life was taught under the spartan way. My conception of insulting and being insulted is different from yours. But I will apologize nonetheless
shrugs Not much we can do about it. We'd have to dismantle society (corporate, government, banks ect). From the top to the bottom before we would get close to any real change. Especially the kind you want to see. I mean, the media is just chalk full of virtual killing, news about killing, even the "holy book" has a lot to do with bloodshed. Our society feeds off it. I've walked down the history section of books stores plenty of times and I've noticed that (roughly) 80-90% of the books there were all about historical wars. All of this is controlled by higher powers with lots of money.
It was the south's fault for the civil war, it was important. Sometimes you need to kill to stop killing. If the nuke wasn't made, more milions would of died. When A.E made the bomb, one thing he said was,
it is Lincolns fault why the South rebelled. Lincoln never thought that the South relies on slaves for their economic survival, the legality of the crime changes by the need for it
I understand their regrets, everyone makes mistakes. But what I cannot understand is why people never asked why the creators regretted everything. Heck, its even a bigger mystery as to why no one wonders if they are worthy of such a superweapon
It seems like the only thing connecting the rejected pacifist and the man who invented the nuclear bomb is something along the line that a pacifist creates life and peace, and the guy who invented the nuclear bomb creates fear and death.
If you had asked me what I like fear and death more than life and peace, then I would be able to answer, but that's not really what you are asking is it? You are asking me whether a guy who promotes life and peace is more of a genius than a guy who enables mass destruction. But think the question is impossible to answer simple because no specific pacifist movement is mentioned, while a specific invention is mentioned on the other. You are asking me to evaluate an entire range of people from different times and different walks of life against a very narrow set of people doing scientific work.
But to actually answer I would say that, genius is often measured in original insight, but I think acknowledging wisdom thousands of years old is equally bright. So I pick the pacifist, but mostly because I think nuclear weapons is one of the most brainddead things to have on this earth, and because talk and diplomacy makes more sense than war and murder.
Well, it took more than one man to create the nuke. And if I called the man who planned 9/11 a genius for being able to bypass all the security and manage to entirely succeed in what he was trying to do,with mass effect, I would be mercilessly abused by people calling me a terrorist for advocating such things ( as I feel about the bastard who created the nuke.)
But a being a pacifist takes a lot more. You need to consider how the world works, all the little things, all the big things, morals, philosophies e.t.c. That is genius. Looking up a bunch of papers made by some other scientist, then knowing enough about physics to be able to put them all together to make a weapon powerful enough to kill us all, is impressive, clever yes, but not genius.
Nobody belittles the art of seeking wisdom and pacifism. People don't see those influential people for peace the same way they see Albert Einstein. With Albert Einstein they see intelligence, when they see Ghandi, if we were asking who was wiser, most people may see Ghandi instead of Albert. Intelligence can be anything, however it usually associated with knowledge and logic, rather than the desire for peace, and co-existance, those people typically associate with wisdom.
Then explain why the folks who devoted all their life for wisdom only got themselves killed.
I don't know but I don't see how that has any to do with those devoting their lives to science and reason.
The people who created legendary weapons died in glory.
Actually Einstein didn't die battle, and his "gloy" has nothing to do with his weapon. Do you honestly think that people truly appreciate that the nuke was created?
While the wisest pacifists were only glorified after their deaths. Funny dont you think?
That is true, people whom try to motivate the world towards peace do get ignored more, however that isn't the scientist's fault. The scientist and the peace-maker are evaluated separately by most people.
The way a person belittles the art of seeking wisdom and pacifism is a proof of our stupidity and adoration for violence
This is assuming that's everyone and it's also using a slang word to define an actual definition.
An actual genius is defined by their intelligence, in whatever way they are applying it. The way you're using stupid is to say that's it's uncool or that you don't agree with it, like how people say Justin Bieber is 'stupid'.
The smarter of the two is not definitely assured either way yet with the way the question is phrased, the smarter of the two is the people who can create new technologies with no prior knowledge, over someone who can reject negative emotions. You can take medicine, or become diagnosed with a disorder that make you a pacifist.
Bring in the topic of gravity and they will thought of the atom bomb
Bring in the topic of the atom bomb and they will think of Einstein.
Its not about which one he was remember for, its about how we values his murderous crafts and kills the people who tries to subdue our lust for violence
Its not about which one he was remember for, its about how we values his murderous crafts and kills the people who tries to subdue our lust for violence
This weapon wasn't a "lust for violence" it was an attempt to save more than 1,000,000 lives. The bombs killed more a one time but we killed more by plane from napalm strikes and bombings. This was also a warning to other nations that may have acted out so what you call a "lust for violence" isn't really applicable. You need to realize that he is known for much more. Most people don't know about him creating the atomic bomb. More or less he didn't even make the bomb.
Bring in the topic of gravity and they will thought of the atom bomb
Bring in the topic of the atom bomb and they will think of Einstein
The topic of gravity will relate a general person with his well known equation E=MC^2. Also things like the photoelectric effect and brownian motion are still more applicable than the atomic bomb. He is a true genius. He won the nobel piece prize in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.
Also lets take this from your point of view and twist it. He really developed the theory that lead to the development of the bombs. Now he did persuade Roosevelt in 1939 to begin the Manhattan Project to begin development for the bombs. However he never worked on this by himself and he simply contributed his theories to further develop the weapons. He truly wanted the bombs to be used to end the war so before you bag on one of my role models please check your history.
He truly wanted the bombs to be used to end the war so before you bag on one of my role models please check your history.
I consider Albert Einstein one of my role models as well, he understood reality on a whole other level, and could explain how such a mystical seeming thing like gravity worked within our reality.
Its not about how the A-bomb managed to force the Japs to surrender, its about how we used Einstein to refine and create more weapons
That fact that we used his theories to make the bomb doesnt mean he isnt a genius. In fact it qualifies him as a genius. Also we have made far worse bombs so what are you saying?
Im saying, we define the concept of genius by the amount of contribution you can give for the art of murder than restoration of society and its humanity
"Im saying, we define the concept of genius by the amount of contribution you can give for the art of murder than restoration of society and its humanity"
What? No we dont. He contributed to science. Was he supposed to keep his knowledge hidden? No. They used his amazing theories to further their bombs. Einstein gave huge contributions to all of science. Thanks to him we understand much more about our universe. Are you forgetting his contribution of the theory of relativity? Are you not acknowledging the Nobel prize for his photoelectric effect? You are not remembering all the good he has done.
- Indeed, he contributed to science and science contributed it to bombs. We hail the man behind the superweapons as the smartest men, but the men behind revolutionizing the moralities of societies never recieves a warm welcome
but the men behind revolutionizing the moralities of societies never recieves a warm welcome
This is fucking stupid. Honestly. Ghandi is literally know to be so freaking amazing. Martin Luther is also know for what he did in Europe and now he has churches that follow him. Martin Luther King Jr. changed society and he is an amazing man and we have recognized him for that.
Ghandi was assasinated, Luther was almost killed by the KKK. Guess you know what that means.
We all know that everyone has their haters. But why is it that when its a scientist or a business man, their haters are merely jealous. But if its a man of a revolution, their haters have something personal?
You still dont realize it do you? They are now seen as the most morally superior people. Mostly it is because science is different than morality. You need to realize that we honor those people. Also science can lead a revolution.
My point is, why is it that the "morally superior people" always get the hate, while the men of science always gets the glory?
Umm no. There are a shit ton of scientists who are hated. These morally superior people are literally the moral idols or today so what you are arguing for is invalid. We don't have an entire month dedicated to Einstein. We do have one dedicated to Martin Luther King Jr and the black race for all the hardship they went through. You still have people who hate Einstein and may even try to prove him wrong. Do you know how many theories of gravity there are?
There is a difference between being a scientist and being a criminal. The folks your talking about are those who did inhumane experiments and deserves what they got.
And the ones who were hated then are now morally superior people in today's society. So what are you even talking about? A genius can be practically anyone but a genius is usually only refers to someone who was incredibly smart. Some morally superior people may not even be well educated. The moral is what we look at which already existed and was re-stated and cloaked in pathos in order to bring about change. And you are still wrong because some other scientists hate Einstein. You are placing Morality and Science in a scale against each other which is your first mistake because the two do not relate. Also other people who weren't scientists and also weren't really morally superior are considered geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Albert Einstein and Issac Newton are well known and respected because I what they did for the explanation of the universe and our surroundings. We consider the four people I listed geniuses because of all of their achievements. Morality is quite easy to talk about because some people can portrait it off better than others. MLK Jr and Ghandi are good examples but they simply state the most moral thing in their situational life.
Well damn, text wall. You know, you dont have to write so much when it is not needed. Now I had to dissect them one by one.
sigh
And the ones who were hated then are now morally superior people in today's society
Sure, but compared to how scientists enjoyed their life complete with funds and supports, I dont think its fair that the builders of society are glorified only after they died
And you are still wrong because some other scientists hate Einstein.
-Nobody hates Einstein. If there is, its the students who complain about how much he made physics complicated
You are placing Morality and Science in a scale against each other which is your first mistake because the two do not relate
-Both cases involved genius in order to use. Which one is the better among them?
Morality is quite easy to talk about because some people can portrait it off better than others
- your underestimating it my friend, if morality can be so easily done, then our society will not be still stuck and complaining about corruption and war. Heck, we are not even worthy of our modern technology (proven by hackers and scammers)
I am nearly finished. I am not going to debate if you cant see that real life scientists hate Einstein's work. That why gravity has many theories. Morality exists always. Innovation is new.
The burden of proof is on you my friend. I did my research, I cant find anyone who hates Einstein for a good reason.
No my AbbyNestor, both Morality and Innovation exists with the human mind. However, unlike technology which always improves itself, we however are still stuck in the same immature reasoning and repeated history. For our sense of morality never changed. No one acts like they have already made pass from the bronze age
No my AbbyNestor, both Morality and Innovation exists with the human mind. However, unlike technology which always improves itself, we however are still stuck in the same immature reasoning and repeated history.
Innovation is truly something new presented outside. Morality is a mental thing. Morals simply change diction but Innovation is completely new.
Nope, progress is a normal thing, nothings new, only improved.
In fact, despite all the insane capabilities of the modern computers, the last generation of PC came out in 1990's and the google glass is still not classified as a new generation.
Morality isnt mental thing, it is a social thing. Our sense of justice depends of the perception of the world
Ahhh okay. So fire succeeded what? Of course everything starts in the mind. One doesnt change. That is morals. They remain their. You can choose to follow them or not. Also innovation is a huge word in the business world so go tell them that everything they did isnt innovation.
I kind of thought that was the point you were making.
its about how we values his murderous crafts and kills the people who tries to subdue our lust for violence
Without his 'murderous crafts' we wouldn't be here to have this argument about which is better. Nonviolence, nonviolence has it's moments, but in a war, the enemy doesn't care if you fight back or not, they are tryign to win, so your only option if you don't want to roll over and admit defeat, is to fight back, which at the time was with the Atomic Bomb.
Err...sorry, i kinda had coffee when I posted that, i cant focus when I have caffeine
. Nonviolence, nonviolence has it's moments, but in a war, the enemy doesn't care if you fight back or not, they are tryign to win,
- You contradicted yourself sir, you know that there are far more ways to win a war. (e,g economical attacks) And with how you still prefer to use the classic barbaric ways, it shows that you are indeed belittling the art of wisdom
Anyone can be a rejected pacifist, though yeah not a lot of people can actually follow through. But it takes a truly brilliant (and terrible) mind to conceive of something as complex as the atom bomb.
HOW did they know to do that? I mean wow. Mind-boggling.
Oh, and it's a very 'creative' solution, I'll admit.
Are you saying that it does not take a brilliant mind to change the whole society with just a mere few words? Heck, I doubt that we even have enough wisdom to criticize the herd
Einstein changed the scientific world. Wise men changed the society, which one is the bigger genius for you?
Einstein. Because by changing the scientific world, he changed the way everyone views the real world. We came to understand even more about how our world's mechanics work. In video games, this is just an effective introduction to a game and how it's going to be played out. Some prefer the pretty cutscenes or the deep thought-provoking narratives of other games, but some of us like to see how the game world works.
So too do people like to see how the real world works. It even excites people who understand just how far we've come as a society. Many of the things you take for granted, after all, are only possible by advances in science.
If you see nothing good in science and reject it completely, then you are being a fool. Ironic, really, since the opposite of foolishness is 'wisdom'.
Because by changing the scientific world, he changed the way everyone views the real world
- What science does is to explain the real world. What Einstein did was to explain gravity and the theory of relativity. He changed the scientific community sure, but society can only change according to its interpretation of morality.
Ah so when it comes to my more systematic mind, I merely have no soul or morals. I see your 'point'.
How can you be so certain that those who value science do not value morality, and vice versa?
You act as if Einstein was some morally void person, when it's actually quite the opposite. Perhaps this is the result of indoctrination on your part, perhaps not, but we cannot view the facts through such an emotional filter. Saying, or even thinking along the lines of "Science produced the atom bomb so it's evil and can't have any morals" is wrong, and one should be ashamed for doing so (you know who you are). Some of the greater advances in science or medicine has come out as a result of morals.
For instance, we might all agree it's morally wrong to let people suffer when we can find a cure for their disease/ailments/whathaveyou. Such a viewpoint has led to vaccinations, surgical techniques, etc. In fact I'd say a lot of the technological/scientific advances made for medicine are made as a result of wanting to help others. So is this morally wrong? No, not really.
So I disagree with your assertion that we can't have science and morality. We can and have done both.
This debate is getting more and more misdirected by the second
You act as if Einstein was some morally void person, when it's actually quite the opposite....."Science produced the atom bomb so it's evil and can't have any morals" is wrong, and one should be ashamed for doing so
- Let me clear it, the goal I have in mind when I started this debate is to know which one is the bigger genius, the one who got killed in building the morality of society or the one behind the greatest weapons.
It was never supposed to be an argument of whether science has morals or not. It was an argument of which one is the true genius and why the other does not get the same fame as the other.
Then perhaps you should not have asked such a loaded question. It's obvious you support Ghandi far more, and that was before my first post here. So with your failure I attempted to address the core issues that you brought up in our dialogue.
If this debate was misdirected, it was no fault of mine.
I'm sorry if my 'Western culture' is clashing with your 'Asian influences'.
A loaded question is a logical fallacy. Educate yourself a bit. I can wait.
Are you done using Google? Good. We can move on now.
Why you're guilty of using this fallacy is because, so far as I can tell, you are promoting Ghandi as 'good' and Einstein as 'evil' based on one single aspect: whether they've contributed to society with war or peace. Which is fallacious to begin with but let's stay on point here.
By asking if the man who has more genius is a 'rejected pacifist' (and therefore someone to be pitied and loved) or 'the man who created the nuke' (and therefore someone to be demonized and insulted), you are guilty of a 'loaded question'. And without letting people like me explore the other contributions those people have made, as well as other things, you're limiting discussion and making me suspect that no matter what I say, you will always view Ghandi in a superior light due to some fallacious notion that peace doesn't involve weapons.
My sir, it appears like your accusations of me is just your own imaginations.
I never said that Einstein was bad, I merely said that he created the nuke, and people glorified him for it. I never said that i judge them according to where they contributed, but I judge the people who glorify them under the wrong perspectives.
That's the thing with a loaded question, though. You don't necessarily have to believe in the assumption the question makes, but that's what I take away from it. Whether you say it or not, the question implies it.
I've just asked about the topic what it was all about. You may find it surprising but I'm debating with more people that you may think. So if I haven't sent you something, you will definitively not get it by blabbing.
To me, genius is the technical ability of someone - their intelligence, how smart they are, how easily they understand new concepts. A genius is not necessarily a good person - they are simply smart.
To create a nuclear weapon, you need to be incredibly smart. To realise that humanity needs kindness, and to put down your weapon takes courage and a will to help others. While I believe that this is more important than intelligence, that's not to say that it makes that person a genius.
