CreateDebate


Debate Info

64
62
Fend for yourself Care for others
Debate Score:126
Arguments:95
Total Votes:138
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Fend for yourself (41)
 
 Care for others (50)

Debate Creator

Quocalimar(6469) pic



Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?

Should the world and it's inhabitants begin to fend for it's self such as the way of nature, or should we nurture  the and care for everything just out of human kindness.

Fend for yourself   Caring for others art 

Fend for yourself

Side Score: 64
VS.

Care for others

Side Score: 62

I support nature. Nature's cycles gives everyone a chance. After Spring, with all of its bright, cheerful, colors, nature gives Goth kids a chance in the Fall.

If the weak are allowed to die off, nature would eventually give them a chance. If the strong are too stupid to keep at least a few nerds alive to solve problems, they will eventually die off and nerds would get their day in the sun. If the nerds don't keep enough cheerleaders around, then the geeks will take over. ;)

Side: Fend for yourself
2 points

Nature doesn't let the weak flourish during good times. The kind chieftain would attract the most fertile women. Only the strongest could afford to be kind, so the weak and cruel get less offspring. Kindness goes hand in hand with strength. It is a driving force in development.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

Well sure be kind. I'm not some heartless bastard saying go around and steal wheelchairs, bully nerds, and shoot all the deaf people.

I'm mostly saying that we shouldn't be kind to a fault. That fault would be as little as spending a cent that could go to better advancements in the society that does't need help.

Side: Fend for yourself

There's a huge gulf between kindness and cruelty ;)

Side: Care for others
2 points

By supporting the weak, we allow it to flourish and grow weaker as a society. If we let it die on it's own or thrive on it's own we will grow stronger as a society.

Side: Fend for yourself
Sitara(11082) Disputed Banned
1 point

Whatever you say, Adolf. ;)

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
4 points

How does that qualify as a dispute? It's little more that a biased, judgmental, statement of opinion.

Side: Fend for yourself
1 point

The average strength of the individuals in the group is far from the strength of the group. Only by having others to rely on can obstacles be overcome.

Furthermore, a weak society is better than an extinct society. Would you rather have Africa be a free breeding ground for viruses? Would you salute a nuclear first strike?

Side: Care for others
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Consider a genetically fat person, can't run as fast as a skinny person, so they might be seen as weak in a situation where they need to run, such as in Africa with lions. Up north where it's cold however, blubber is a nice thing to have.

Evolutionary Strength is the ability to adapt to changing conditions, if you eliminate the weak in a particular situation, you reduce the ability to adapt to new situations, which damages strength of society. Weak individuals in a society, are actually essential to it's long term strength.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

Your examples were perfect examples of how it's good to be Darwinistic.

If you are fat and can't survive well in a lion infested area, you shouldn't be there, and people shouldn't have to help you.

Just as if you are scrawny but live in a cold climate like Antarctica, you also shouldn't be there so you should either move or adapt.

I was never saying kill all the genetically weak people. I was always saying don't foster their weaknesses.

Side: Fend for yourself

Morally we should help and care for others. In our life only the strongest will survive. By science the strongest animal survives. Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, etc. They became strong by pushing past the weak. Helping the weak can hinder your chance to dominate or control territory. Great Britain was excellent at doing this. They were all around the world proving to the world that they are they strongest. Modern America is a good example. We are strong because of our feared military power. We became an imperial power and stepped on the weak to take the throne. I think we should care for others but science successfully proves me wrong.

Side: Fend for yourself

Hey thanks. I came off as harsh in my opinion that the weaker people should not be aided, but I feel virtually the same as you on this topic.

If the strong get to be their strong selves and the weak make way, the strong will go on to get stronger and the weak will become less of a issue in the future.

Side: Fend for yourself

Hey no problem. Its just science. It proves this all the time. Just as it shows the fall of the strong in place for something stronger and better.

Side: Fend for yourself
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

No science doesn't prove you wrong, what allowed Brits and Americans to become empires?

The mere fact that they were a group which had mechanisms to care for the their own people allowed them to grow. Consider America, well we might of stomped on the native Americans, that would of been impossible if it wasn't for the medics which helped maintain a fighting force, the supply lines that moved resources around for those that might of been otherwise screwed, and so on. Empire requires a level of altruism of individuals, at least for the in-group.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

Those counties when starting out, cared for their people, but other nations were either insignificant or targets. The nation grew stronger because they trampled others, not because they cared so much for the people in their own country. The civil was caused the stronger side to flourish and the weaker side to die out making the country stronger a as whole ultimately also.

Side: Fend for yourself

Have you ever seen that show, "Hoarders?" It teaches us that keeping useless stuff is dangerous. We need to do Spring Cleaning once in a while ;)

http://blogs.ischool.utexas.edu/newmedia/files/2013/02/hoarders.jpg

Side: Fend for yourself

XD that's awful. You're comparing the access weak people to an over abundance of clutter?

Side: Fend for yourself

Hmmm...., I see your point. I have confused weakness with useless. I do not mean physically weak. I mean useless people. People who prefer to sit on their ass waiting for a handout. I mean people who are a drain on society.

Is that better? ;)

Side: Fend for yourself
2 points

You have to fend for yourself before you help others~ or you won't be able to help anyone. But helping others is useful as you gain allies.

Side: Fend for yourself
0 points

I'm not speaking about diseases that are airborne and we can't help getting, like the plague, measles and the like. I am speaking generally of letting people with hereditary ailments that hinder them, to die rather than helping them to procreate and pass on their ailment.

Side: Fend for yourself
Sitara(11082) Clarified Banned
1 point

Okay I can agree with eugenics, but not letting them die. Everyone has the right to lie that is already born. Just sterilize the people who can pass on bad stuff. My main reason for refusing to have children is genetics.

Side: Fend for yourself

Charity begins at home and should not go past the group of people that know you. If your church group knows you and they are willing to take care of you..., fine. But if not..., well then..., you're fucked ;)

Side: Care for others

I could live with that.

Side: Care for others
joecavalry(40086) Clarified
1 point

The reason that works is because the people that know you know if you just hit a rough spot and need a helping hand or if you are just a lazy, leeching, good for nothing ;)

Side: Fend for yourself
3 points

Caring for each other, working together, helping each other out is part of our way of survival. We work on a much more complex level than any other species but we are essentially the more intelligent ant. Who's to say that a dog feed dog society doesn't fit in the nature of the world? It is arguably the most efficient means of survival in effect on this planet.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

Granted. All true, but we strive to keep people alive by paying for expensive medicines when if they would just die their ailment would begin to die with them.

People with Parkinson disease, they go on to have children with Parkinson keeping the disease present in humanity.

Side: Fend for yourself
zephyr20x6(2387) Disputed
2 points

The only way to become more advanced medically is to essentially find cures for different diseases. We all benefit from cure for diseases because any of us can be exposed to disease, we all have an equal chance of doing so, and the more people survive, the more that live the better off our species. We do have the issue of over population but all methods of solving that dillema are all equally on the same footing of justification. I want us to work to curing diseases because if I were exposed or born with a disease I'd want to be cured, and if my son/daughter or family were exposed or born to disease id want to cure them. We strive as a species, the pointo of evolution is for the greater good of our species and we have evolved to such a level where nobody has to be left behind for our species to be better off. This appeals to empathy I realize this but our emotions as flawed as they are were naturally obtained to help our species, and as much as emotion can cloud our judgement, the logic that parallels empathy in this case only helps our species. If we reach a point of advancement in medical technology where we become immune to disease the stronger we are as a species benefitting our evolution.

Side: Care for others
Sitara(11082) Disputed Banned
1 point

You are disgusting. People have the right to live that are already born.

Side: Care for others
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
1 point

People with Parkinson disease, they go on to have children with Parkinson keeping the disease present in humanity.

Parkinson's is not hereditary.

Side: Care for others
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

The benefit of medical advancement these people offer to the whole of society outweighs whatever drain they might appear to be. Consider HIV, we can now kill that virus using nano-tubes and bee venom, and that is actually one step towards genetic engineering and cybernetics that needs to be made. Nano-particles and similar find their testing grounds in the sick, and do you really want to test that stuff out yourself?

I think the more proper question is why someone has to be dependent on others to survive, and if they have to be then why can't people do what they want in such a way that they provide for others without having to seek the permission of others.

Side: Care for others
3 points

Providing a choice to everyone, game theory shows that a cooperative approach leads to a situation that benefits all more than that for an individual party. However, if one party chooses to be deceptive, then all parties lose relative to the optimal. If a non-Darwinist policy is imposed (no choice), then the optimal policy is regained, everyone benefits and a solution closest to optimal is reached.

Side: Care for others
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
2 points

Game theory also assumes an aggressor, as with the prisoner's dilemma (the aggressor being the state.)

When it comes to the tragedy of the commons, it doesn't account for the idea that people, cooperatively, can do just as much or even more damage (as history has shown with tyrants eliminating buffalo in order to kill off the native Americans.)

Game Theory is what it is, a theory. When applied to reality it seems almost like a coping mechanism for living under authoritarianism.

Side: Fend for yourself
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Science and math, a coping mechanism for living under authoritarianism.

You do realize that not all games assume an aggressor, and that the particular form of the prisoner's dilimina can be replaced with another situation without an human or human like agent acting as the authoritarian. How desperate do you have to be?

Side: Care for others

Nice one.

Side: Care for others

Caring for others is a Darwinian idea. Instead of just competing endlessly with each other, members of the same species help each other in a pack. Humans also have adopted altruistic behavior. The idea that war and conquest are natural and that peace is incompatible with the ontological nature of our reality is just plain incoherent.

You would expect things like charity and workers rights instead of conquest and domination. The latter has so far caused over 100 nuclear launches stopped by human intervention at the last minute, the former has stopped polio and established relative peace and freedom.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

Caring for others is a Darwinian idea. Instead of just competing endlessly with each other, members of the same species help each other in a pack.

Yes, in a grand scheme. But how about for Darwinism in species. If a wolf is a bad hunter, it will eventually be left out of the pack hunt. It must contribute if it isn't it must die.

The same is to be said about herds. They care for one another, but only to a degree that isn't damaging to the other members. The slower members of the herd get eaten when the pressure is on.

Side: Fend for yourself
1 point

Arguing against helping the poor is like asking an indian peafowl to cut off it's useless feathers. If you can't see the beauty of a kind person, no one can tell you why you should. Even if there is no utility in altruism, your aesthetic goes against human nature.

Going against that which has developed naturally shouldn't be called Darwinism in the first place. Oh, and when it comes to utility, you don't mess with mother nature.

They care for one another, but only to a degree that isn't damaging to the other members.

Even the encumbering feathers of the peafowl are of remarkable utility. Due to kindness, the strongest tribe would carry the biggest number useless members. The capable members had to get more food as the sassy cavewoman wouldn't stand a selfish mate. The cruel would get less offspring.

It must contribute if it isn't it must die.

In some civilizations for instance, the elderly leave community themselves. Your argument is this altruism: "we should accept the consequences for the development of humanity". Should the weak then be heralded?

There is no better model for the development of humanity than kindness. It is of remarkable utility, and suggesting otherwise is a misreading of evolution.

The peafowl doesn't die off due to its feathers, on the contrary, it ensures that inefficient individuals won't flourish when food is plenty. During rough times, the trait deteriorates as fast as it flourished, leaving a more efficient peafowl.

Side: Care for others
1 point

A nation that cares for it's most venerable citizens it one that is strong and honorable.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

It's honorable not to bite, scratch, or throw dirt in a fight, that doesn't mean it's best for you.

Side: Fend for yourself
kozlov(1755) Disputed
1 point

However, in this case, it is best and it is honorable :)

Side: Care for others
1 point

I think we should care about other people then ourselves because if we take care of ourselves and not help people what good is that going to do?

Side: Care for others

It is wonderful to help others who need help. It is cruel for people who have so much not to help the poor.

Side: Care for others
Sitara(11082) Banned
0 points

My religion requires kindness, and so does my politics. Liberal Jew in the house.

Side: Care for others
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

These are the requirements of your religion and politics, but that doesn't mean they are best for society.

Some would argue that Religions hinder society, which would make your religion's requirements troublesome.

Side: Fend for yourself
Sitara(11082) Disputed Banned
1 point

Now you REALLY sound like Adolf Hitler. It is people like YOU who bring society down.

Side: Care for others