To Use Stoicism as a Tool vs Stoicism as According to their Virtues
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
"Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing virtue and living in accordance with nature.
Alongside Aristotelian ethics, the Stoic tradition forms one of the major founding approaches to virtue ethics. The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings, and that external things, such as health, wealth, and pleasure, are not good or bad in themselves (adiaphora) but have value as "material for virtue to act upon". Many Stoics—such as Seneca and Epictetus—emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness", a sage would be emotionally resilient to misfortune. The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved. To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature."
If a purpose of Stoicism be to achieve happiness, to flourish,
By virtue of good character and action.
Then I argue as a tool, it fits finely into place.
Dominate one's business rivals,
Pick up romantic partners,
Play the crypto market,
Drop bombs in war.
People have different values, ideals,
Stoicism itself changed early on,
"Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of sexuality, romantic love and sexual relationships."
Are Stoic view of living in tune with nature to be held on 'exactly,
So often one hears fallacy, fallacy, about that in debates,
So then let Stoicism be flexible.
I argue at it's core is contained,
Distance from 'pure passion ruling oneself.
Then I argue it works well as a control, a tool,
And let the individuals virtues be as they reason, not dogma,
Is happiness, good spiritedness not 'felt, not passion?
2. Dominate one’s business rivals,
3. Pick up romantic partners
4. Play the crypto market,
5.Drop bombs in a war,
B. “Does this not jive with Stoicism, Our situation is as we perceive it?”
B. Why live in accordance with nature, if all one needs is their mind?
I found Pro's arguments a little thin. I think the concept of atheist Christian was fantastic, and if developed more, could have won the argument. Con did a better job explaining their position, although ran into some potential problems with the moral and intellectual bankrupt claims. Unfortunately Pro did not attack those concepts. Con had a much harder argument to make, and based on the narrative was the winner. Conduct and Sources a tie.
The bar joke was funny, however, the zoo joke was the better of the 4 jokes.
There is a huge gap between Pro and Con. While I am ideologically aligned with Pro which is my bias, Con approaches this with superior knowledge and authority on the subject that it makes me favor his side.
Pro is arguing for using stoicism selectively, picking and choosing which values to adopt to enhance your own life. His side therefore seems to support an independent and more individualist way of thinking where you take and learn from separate ideologies. That overall, it’s better for someone’s mindset to prioritize diversity over putting Stoicism on a pedestal. Pro’s argument is that stoicism and hedonism aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Con argues that it is insufficient to cherry-pick beliefs and that Stoicism requires a full commitment in order to obtain true happiness. In round 1, Con implies I must vote down Pro because him using the description as his Round 1 argument and the limited character count puts him at a disadvantage. I’m not going to oblige this request for two reasons.:
1. It’s not against the rules for debaters to use their description as their round 1 argument.
2. It’s a silly demand.
Con argues that devotion to one school of thought is inherently better than being indecisive and following multiple schools.
Pro had one good example, regarding the MMA fighter but he didn’t do a very good job at supporting his side or defending against Con’s brutal attacks. So Con wins for arguments.
Spelling & grammar is a tie.
Both sides utilized sources for their points, so it’s a tie.
Conduct is a tie.