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.
Where do you put yourself?
It has been said that there are two types of people in the world, those who seek to dominate and those who seek only to be left alone. Specifically, those who like to dominate and control others will tend to gravitate towards, or even seek out, positions of power.
Then, there are those who do not attempt to dominate, but would rather live their own life and let, even preferring that their "neighbor(s)" live his/hers/theirs. This does not negate situations or circumstances that arise that may require someone to take the lead; such as, parenting and/or survival/emergency scenerios, etc.
I dislike too much responsibility. I'd rather just sit back and let life happen.
I appreciate your honesty. However, the debate was not suggesting someone shirk their own responsibility. As a matter of fact, in order to live and let live, one has to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.
However, the debate was not suggesting someone shirk their own responsibility.
Oh, I know. I mean't I didn't want to be in charge of everyone, because to me, that's too much responsibility. That's why I said too much responsibility. :) I suppose I should have made that a little clearer.
in order to live and let live, one has to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.
The nature of people is more nuanced than this. One can live and let live while seeking leadership. One can want to be in charge without seeking domination.
The nature of people is more nuanced than this. One can live and let live while seeking leadership. One can want to be in charge without seeking domination.
Can you clarify "while seeking leadership"? Do you mean someone to lead them or a position of leadership?
It is true that someone can want to be in charge and not seek domination over others, however, they might not truly want to be in charge, just let others know that there is something that needs to happen or they are hired for a leadership position.
It is really the difference between communicating the need to get a thing done, depending on a given situation and just plain having a big head a.k.a. big ego.
Maybe they don't, but I am referring to someone who does. You can want to be in charge. You can enjoy that position, but that doesn't necessarily mean you seek domination.
By seeking leadership, I meant seeking to fill that role.
Maybe they don't, but I am referring to someone who does. You can want to be in charge. You can enjoy that position, but that doesn't necessarily mean you seek domination.
Can you tell me what it does mean, then? Whether a person enjoys their job; even a supervisory position is not what is asked about. Maybe, we need to get specific. When a person does seek to dominate they are seeking power over others.
The definition even speaks to it quoted from dictionary.com:
1. to control, rule, or govern (someone or something)
Yet, even if a person is hired for a leadership role, they still have to give good reason that others should listen. This can be done by either brute force, i.e. using threats of violence or flat out attacking, or giving some incentive; the latter could simply be an example through actions. It boils down to attitude, though not that alone.
By seeking leadership, I meant seeking to fill that role.
Okay, I thought so, but wanted to be sure.
The definition is toward the bottom under World English Dictionary. There is a similar one given first as well.
I am having editing issues so I will post the rest here and my position. The rest should say What type are you and why?
Also, if you were "in charge" how far are you willing to take it to 'enforce' your commands/demands/rules etc.? Can you explain what you would do to ensure people listen and do as you say?
My position is Live and Let live because I know that I might find myself in the lead but, without some reason for people to listen to what I say, there is little else I can do. As for what my neighbor might do with his/her life, it is not really any of my business unless or until their actions put myself or family etc in harms way.
I would be the kind of person who likes to be in power, and rules succusesfully.
And make the world safer(for example, I beleive in the death penalty).
I would enforce the death penalty, however, with things such as religion, i would allow everyone to have freedom.
Okay, but isn't that already being attempted? Has that not been tried by many down through time? It seems like the world should be safer now? But is it?
In terms of health care e.c.t. I believe the world is better, however the crime rate is high, espicially inside countries like Russia, USA, India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. I beleive the death penalty would probably be something that most outlaws would fear, so to prevent them from commiting a crime. I wouldn't make it too extreme(like that law william I brought to england, if you stole anything more than 5p, you could be hung), it would only be for crimes such as murder.
In terms of health care e.c.t. I believe the world is better, however the crime rate is high, espicially inside countries like Russia, USA, India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. I beleive the death penalty would probably be something that most outlaws would fear, so to prevent them from commiting a crime. I wouldn't make it too extreme(like that law william I brought to england, if you stole anything more than 5p, you could be hung), it would only be for crimes such as murder.
Okay, so if I did not want to pay for others healthcare, what you do to me to make sure I did? How far would you be willing to take it?
I beleive that healtcare is something which should not be payed to have.
I am not sure I understand, you do not think health-care should be payed for? Whether it is private sector or 'government' run/provided someone pays for it. It could be done through charity, but it is largely not. If I decide to give to St.Jude's Children Hospital, then, that is my decision.
So, how would it be paid for other than through charity? Unless that is what you had in mind, how would you pay for it? Then, how far would you go to enforce that measure?
I might have the money directly given from the goverment.
But government people do not produce any wealth; they take by way of 'taxes' and redistribute how they see fit. So following this logic, are you willing to use deadly force to pay for it? Don't forget, in this scenerio you are in charge, i.e. a 'government' person.
The government are supplied by various producers and company's. As for deadly force I would not want to use it. One the contrary I would find it much easier to deal with my own life than other, however, I would want to improve the country(I come from the United Kingdom).
The government are supplied by various producers and company's. As for deadly force I would not want to use it. One the contrary I would find it much easier to deal with my own life than other, however, I would want to improve the country(I come from the United Kingdom).
Yes, it is called 'taxes'. And if a person refuses to pay, the end game is either imprisonment until they comply or deadly force. But, you said you would not want to use deadly force. Well, that sounds well intentioned and many in such a position perhaps declared the same until they were in the position to pass down the order to do so.
Also, anyone would like to improve their own 'country' or place they live. Yet, that can be done through other means than, ruling over others.
It used to be said that a woman could walk across the Mongol empire with a purse of gold and never once fear for her safety. They had very strict policies.
Though the variables used can be argued, some folks have tried to determine the most peaceful countries and times. They argue that we are currently living in the most peaceful time in human history.
I depends on what 'most peaceful time in history means', if it's about crime, then crime is at it's highest, and there are many wars today, for example korea, afganistan, arab-israeli conflict, syria e.c.t.
It used to be said that a woman could walk across the Mongol empire with a purse of gold and never once fear for her safety. They had very strict policies.
Though the variables used can be argued, some folks have tried to determine the most peaceful countries and times. They argue that we are currently living in the most peaceful time in human history.
And they refuted the "Mongol Peace" in the following quote:
"But do those innovations and prosperity outweigh the destruction wrought by the expansion of the Mongolian Empire? Enemies of the government were all but annihilated, and any internal resistance was dealt with in a swift and brutal manner. Even though the legacy of the Mongols is still evident today, they didn't establish the most peaceful era in history."
The conclusion of the entire article is pretty vague and mentions that what they determined is relative.
The purpose of the debate topic is to put a personal context on how a person would do things if they were in positions of 'authority'. I hold that you cannot bring peace through force. The only way for it to really be achieved is to allow for it to your neighbor, as you would like it for yourself; this would fit for freedom as well. The question boils down to this: How far is one willing to go to enforce their commands upon others?
I hold that you cannot bring peace through force. The only way for it to really be achieved is to allow for it to your neighbor, as you would like it for yourself
Whoever says something like the above isn't likely the problem to peace. It's the neighbor. What do you do when you hold to the golden rule, but the "other" doesn't?
Whoever says something like the above isn't likely the problem to peace. It's the neighbor. What do you do when you hold to the golden rule, but the "other" doesn't?
Who says they are not holding to the same rule? If that neighbor takes it all the way to initiating violent attack upon me, then they do not have a valid claim in a complaint against me when I defend myself and they get beat-up; or if they are killed. Through their own actions they declared that they treat others in such a way and therefore agree to be treated in like fashion. In the 'law' it may be set-up in different ways depending on where one is at, however, the claim of self-defense as a 'right' amongst others rest on that rule; at least as far as people co-existing amongst each other, whether peacefully or otherwise.
One can say many things but, actions speak louder than words. I am not going to fear my neighbors. I'll observe their actions and go from there. I would want the same consideration.
I want to make a difference. I want my life to mean something. .
Okay, but you could do things to make a difference without ruling over others. You can find meaning to your life without dictating what your neighbor do with theirs. I will ask you this question: Should products and/or services be provided at the barrel of a gun?
