What is the more legitimate weapon: Fear, or the Promise of Progress through Unity?
I asked a friend this exact question recently and he came up with the answer of Fear. I came up with the answer of the Promise of Tomorrow. He said fear, being rather self-explanatroy since its an emotion felt by everyone, will prevent people from doing what you dont want them to do, but that it should only be used by the wise. I agreed, but put forth the argument that Fear as a weapon strips people of their free will and also discourages Human development, whether that be in science or sociology, and that the Promise of Tomorrow combined with History and its correct interpretations is something that controls itself because it is controlled by the people who already know the consequences rather than a select elite few. Which is the more legitimate weapon for maintaining Peace?
FEAR!
Side Score: 5
|
 |
TOMORROW HOLDS A BETTER WORLD!
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Fear. Take for example, the cold war. The USSR and other communist states promised a perfect utopia to the world, but that merely started wars in the east with those who refused. On the other hand, fear was use in the form of fear of mutual assured destruction and prevented another world war. Side: FEAR!
Feh, why is it that everyone always instantly assumes fear to be a better weapon? Not to insult you or anything. I do not speak of a Utopia in a direct Sense, more so that Fear, when used as a weapon reduces humans to nothing but shells of movement that are not allowed to progress onward in a truly human form. However, The Promise of Tomorrow and everything that Implies, utilizes brotherhood and competitive natures to produce an everchanging tomorrow without the use of Fear to direct people and, thus, the continuation of all their liberties and humanities. Therefore, The Promise of Tomorrow holds a Better World. Side: TOMORROW HOLDS A BETTER WORLD!
1
point
|
2
points
I agree with neither. Conflict and strife are necessary for humans to grow, hence alleviating conflict in effect alleviates the need for existence. For the purposes of my post, I choose the latter though some clarification is necessary. maintaining Peace We don't have peace. The war-ridden world has physical conflict, and the advanced world has manipulative oppression. fear, being rather self-explanatroy since its an emotion felt by everyone So is love. This isn't an argument. will prevent people from doing what you dont want them to do What gives anyone the right to say something like this? but that it should only be used by the wise Wise is relative, however no wise person pursues control of others, just themselves. Promise of Tomorrow ... controls itself ... controlled by the people ... rather than a select elite few The approved history only teaches us what to avoid. The general population can't be relied on to manifest their own heavens, the answer isn't to control them through any method, but to leave them to their own devices and grow. The fact is, most people are uninformed. They think that praying for peace is a worthwhile endeavor, not realizing that the only reason a 3rd dimensional plane exists is to develop their 3rd dimensional consciousness = work = conflict. Peace is not only overrated, but counterproductive. Peace is a goal, an unattainable goal, for if it were attainable, it would have been brought about already. Humans are constantly bettering themselves: parents treating their children better, individuals avoiding the mistakes their parents made, conflict enabling empathy and introspection, the adaption of desirable qualities into personality etc.. The positive and negative in our realm comprise a balancing act, and the mentioned ensure the positive remains resilient. Most people go about their lives with the vague notion that a world exists perpendicular to our own, but only turn to it in times of distress. Most people WORK IN PROGRESS Side: Me go to bank now
AHA! For your opening you state that conflict is required for the continues growth of Humanity, and that the removal of such removes progress and a point of existence. By removing the idea of a point of existence, which I will argue some other time, I argue that conflict is not required for progress in that United Sates is a good example of such. We hold generalizaed peace within our own country. Scientific and sociological advancement is common throughout its entirety. I argue that a sense of brotherhood, when achieved, is a far more streamlined and efficient form of human progression on which is promoted by a Pormise of Tomorrow. You may argue that fear can also deliver this but no, it cannot, in that fear would by its nature create suspicion of others and a state of universal paranoia that would destroy brotherhood and everything you have worked for since the Brotherhood's Inception. If you want some more info on the Brotherhood part of this argument, go to this link and read my response to the topic: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ By the way, Id like to make the statement that this argument is free of Space and Time. As such, the problems of today and the realistic incpetion of these arguments cannot be combined. This is an argument between the two solely free of time and also postulated in a theoretical plane and therefore free of absolutive error. I speak of maintaining peace in a theoretical sense, as if peace is alreadya given and now the argument is how to keep that peace. The second point, yeah; I know. Its just an explanation that I didnt want to put out because I wanted you to use your own definition of fear and how it affects you. So I agree. Its not an argument. Its an open explantion of a term. I say that either will prevent people from doing what you dont want them to do bevause that has been a general truth in world history as can be seen throughout the history of religion, from the Jews all the way through the Catholics. If you look at how they use fear, it was rather affective in getting them to do what they wanted. The Church controlled just about everyone who considered themsleves under their jurisdiction or were forced under such(Minus the crusades). Wise is a relative term, and I use it more so as a direct quote from the person I argued with this same topic over. He said wise, and I agree with you, more or less. Its more so the Unbiased Philosophical elite that he meant, I think. And Id say that my disambiguation would work. So, DIRECT CONTRADICTION IS CONTRADICTORY. Again, in your final (constructed) argument you ascertain to today. In the theoretical plane Im thinking in, the people would be educated on the history just arbitrarily because this topic and its arguments would throw together everyone into a debate of emotion, then values, then metaphysics(to give a spectrum of debate from lower intelligence to higher intelligence). I also disagree that Peace is counter-productive(see above link for why I think the rest of the argument). Trying to achieve what we call political peace is counter-productive, sure, but what if I told you I had a system for achieving utopian peace by destroying the world and making a brand new one, more or less. I dont think that True, irrefutable peace can be achieved by slow sociological progression, as it would eventually peter out as people get closer and closer to the higher values because as soon as they do, in order to preserve what they have achieved thus far they would have to not aggravate anyone else, and arguing over the bigger things would do just that and destroy everything they had worked for and create a series of very different societies again, and again, and again. Think about that. I can see you disagreeing with me on that and I have no real tangible proof of such result, but... Just think about that. Im pretty sure Im right on that point. And thats all of your constructed argument thus far. I hope to see the rest soon enough. Side: TOMORROW HOLDS A BETTER WORLD!
2
points
|
