Random Debates

'The Finder' style

Are youse looking for quality electronics at a fair price? Well, come on down to The Electric Palace where we have everything youse are looking for! While money can't be earned by posting here, youse'll find great deals on nonsense of all kinds. So what are youse waiting for? Join the conversations that just don't quite fit anywhere else!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

Fight
vs
Flight


Which is the better response?
Image
User avatar
Woody
Set blasters to rapid-fire
Posts: 5152
Joined: January 2012
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be

Post by Woody »

It depends on what you're fighting or fleeing from. A cheetah, you can't outrun, so you'd have to fight, or just let it kill you. A bear, definitely do not run, as that will make them want to chase you. A thug, you would probably want to run to a place with a lot of people. Once again, it depends on the situation. ;)
I have been robbed of my rightful secret moderator powers! Vote here to help me get them back!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

I agree, this is definitely another one where the full answer is that it depends on the situation. As you describe, in some cases fleeing would be impossible so fighting would be necessary, in some cases fighting would be impractical so fleeing would be the best option.
Once again though, I have to choose one. So, is there a specific type of situation you can think of where both fight and flight are viable options? Then we could actually take a stance on which is intrinsically better.
Image
User avatar
Tikvah
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 801
Joined: December 2012
Location: The balmy frozen north.

Post by Tikvah »

Well, if a bear had already began to run toward you, and there was a tree that could by climbed easily (and was thick enough so that the bear couldn't push it over) nearby, then i would flee for the tree. If I was in a prairie then I would not run.

If both fighting and fleeing had equal chances of success, then I would chose to flee, but that is just a preference and is not backed by any exceptional logic.
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

I couldn’t think of enough specific scenarios for individual comparisons, so I just envisioned an abstract situation where both fight and flight are practical responses, with neither being an obvious better choice. In that case, I would determine flight to be the best option. As the saying goes, ‘He that chooses to run away lives to fight another day.’ If you use the adrenaline to flee you can get away safely and determine what your next action should be on your terms. If you choose to fight the adrenaline may allow you to do better than you otherwise would have, but there is no guarantee it would be enough to win. So although I would say that the complete answer is that it depends on the specific situation, for purposes of choosing a side in this comparison I say that flight is the better response.
Image
User avatar
Woody
Set blasters to rapid-fire
Posts: 5152
Joined: January 2012
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be

Post by Woody »

So... when's the next debate?
I have been robbed of my rightful secret moderator powers! Vote here to help me get them back!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

New topics are posted every Monday. Usually.
Image
User avatar
Woody
Set blasters to rapid-fire
Posts: 5152
Joined: January 2012
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be

Post by Woody »

Until Monday, then! \:D/
I have been robbed of my rightful secret moderator powers! Vote here to help me get them back!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

Certitude
vs
Certainty


Which is better?
Image
User avatar
Tikvah
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 801
Joined: December 2012
Location: The balmy frozen north.

Post by Tikvah »

*Goes to look up certitude.*

Seeing as they are synonyms, it is only a question of preference. I personally would choose certainty, as more people know what it means.
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

They are synonyms in some senses, but there is a subtle difference. Certitude is the feeling of assuredness about something, certainty is the assuredness itself. It’s a somewhat obtuse distinction, but one that is necessary to make in this case where we are tasked with choosing one over the other.
So with that distinction in mind, I say that certainty is better because it is always solid. You can have certitude about something that isn’t actually certain, you just believe it’s certain. But if something has certainty, that’s just the way it is. There’s no room for error or misjudgment. You can believe it with no reservation.
Image
User avatar
Tikvah
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 801
Joined: December 2012
Location: The balmy frozen north.

Post by Tikvah »

If you use that definition, than Certainty would indeed be better.
User avatar
Whitty Whit
Whittier than you
Whittier than you
Posts: 5985
Joined: June 2010
Location: Somewhere

Post by Whitty Whit »

bookworm wrote:
Duty
vs
Honor

Which is more important to adhere to?
Fight
vs
Flight

Which is the better response?
Certitude
vs
Certainty

Which is better?
Duty vs Honor: Depending on wherever your allegiance lies, duty is the better part of valor. Personally, if I were in a situation, I would go with what I believe to be morally right. At that moment, there is not duty or honor. But then again, I'm willing to do the not-moral things for the seeming benefit of good.

Fight vs Flight: If I have the upper hand, I would fight logically. If I do not have the upper hand, I would asses the entire situation and if I deem that a defeat of me is inevitable, I would flee if it were safe to do so. Obviously, if I can't flee, I would strategically fight the enemy to put them in a situation where they would lose a large amount of their force/gains.

Certitude vs Certainty: Certainty would be better. If this is not known or unattainable, certitude would "certainly" be good also.
Last edited by Whitty Whit on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1x admin, 2x moderator. 3-26-11, 5-25-12
Image
Jehoshaphat wrote:I mean every election is basically just choosing what type of government we want.
#FOREVERKITTY
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

Designated Hitter
vs
Al-Qaeda


Which is more anti-American?


Arguments:

“There is nothing more anti-American than the designated hitter. This country was founded on a celebration of our individual freedoms. The designated hitter puts the team’s collective success over that of the individual. ‘Can’t bat? Oh don’t worry, we’ll just have somebody else do that part of your job for you so we can all win together.’ There’s another name for that: Communism. Al-Qaeda is doomed to failure, they’re hiding in caves. Designated hitters walk amongst us as heroes, it’s subversive.”

“Al-Qaeda is more anti-American than anything. You can’t get any more anti-American than actually trying to destroy America.”
Image
User avatar
Agent 86
0x Moderator 0x Admin
0x Moderator 0x Admin
Posts: 3073
Joined: March 2010
Location: Out on a top secret mission!

Post by Agent 86 »

this should be in CCDS
^AIOluver^

Who am I? I'd rather not answer that question, the real question is, "Who are you?". Right now I am trying to think of something witty to put here.. I might not find anything, but that's fine. This block of text should be fine for a signature. Wait, are you still reading this? Why are you reading this? Stop. Seriously.
STOP.
This sentence is true.
The sentence above is false.

I dare you not to read this.
Hey! I said not to read this.
Maybe if I talk like this.
Wait, you still see me? *sighs* I give up.


http://blackgaardscastle.forumotion.com/
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

Young Link wrote:this should be in CCDS
Not really. CCDS isn’t a catch-all for every debate thread (though that is a common misconception), it’s just a container for debates concerning more mature content.
Image
User avatar
Woody
Set blasters to rapid-fire
Posts: 5152
Joined: January 2012
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be

Post by Woody »

I don't really know what either is, but if Al-Queda is trying to destroy America, I would say that's more Anti-American
I have been robbed of my rightful secret moderator powers! Vote here to help me get them back!
User avatar
bookworm
ToO Historian
ToO Historian
Posts: 16248
Joined: July 2006
Contact:

Post by bookworm »

A designated hitter is a baseball player that bats in another player’s place.
Al-Qaeda is the terrorist group behind the September 11th attacks.


I understand where the argument against the designated hitter is coming from, and the setup could be seen as against American values depending on how you define those values. But I would argue that in a different light you could actually make a case for the designated hitter being pro-American, because baseball is ‘America’s pastime’ and therefore the parts of baseball must be American endorsed. But either way you want to take it, there’s no contest here. Al-Qaeda is certainly more anti-American than the designated hitter. As the presented argument says, even if you see the dh as destroying American values, Al-Qaeda is trying to destroy America itself.
Image
User avatar
Woody
Set blasters to rapid-fire
Posts: 5152
Joined: January 2012
Location: Whenever and wherever I want to be

Post by Woody »

Well, now that I know what both are, yeah, it's no contest. Al-Qaeda is more anti-American.
I have been robbed of my rightful secret moderator powers! Vote here to help me get them back!
User avatar
American Eagle
Chief of Police
Posts: 11977
Joined: September 2008
Gender:

Post by American Eagle »

This debate is rather silly, because the designated hitter is used in the American League of baseball. Why would it be anti-American if the AL likes it? It's actually anti-National League. The National League sounds like Nationalism, which reminds me of Communism, so the designated hitter is clearly anti-Communist.
Last edited by American Eagle on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
he/him | attorney | spartan | christian | bleeding heart type

Note: My past posts do not necessarily reflect my values. Many of them were made when I was young and (in retrospect) misguided. If you identify a post that expresses misinformation, prejudice, or anything harmful, please let me know.
Post Reply