Do humans want validation or we need it?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
: necessary duty : OBLIGATION
If we break down to the literal meaning of validation I e. "conformation of an act"
On oblivious situations like praising a child to share toys or validating your passport, then I totally agree but if we take it in the sense of "approval of others is mandatory for a person's lifestyle choices in order to attain good mental health" that's where I part.
I gave my definition. It is an obligation, our need. Your example is void because "mandatory" does not mean a need. And I don't think validation is always something with mental health, thought it can be. I need validation before attenting mental health services, kinda funny, huh? So, it can tie into that if needed.
1) Here, the validation con is using is in its literal form. Verification of an act in order to operate in a systematic way of a place( entering the zoo, validation of passport) while I am referring to the contextual meaning(life choices, acceptance of others about what you do). Both valid.
: necessary duty : OBLIGATION
2) Mandatory may not be synonymous to need but when its mandatory, you NEED to do it.3) "I don't think validation is always something with mental health, though it can be" and that's exactly our common ground. Validation does not effect mental health as its not that important to the point its lack of it crumbles healthy mental functioning. Its nice but we can go on well without it.
A normal, self content human can perform well without the constant approval of others about their individualistic choices(how they look, how they are or how good they do something)given that they are open to criticism, growth. Hence, validation is not a need.
forfeits..............................
Pro bailing on the first round was fatal to their position because Con opened up with a very literal interpretation, which was clever. I thought Pro had a chance to bring this back, because the need vs want contextual is psychological, however, Pro flushed it when they admitted to the literal meaning of the word.
Everything Con said was true. Ergo Con wins.
Con's argument relies heavily on their proposed definition of need, but it is never directly challenged. It's clear that validation is required in some circumstances, and Pro calls Con's description of the resolution "literal." Hence, if I take the resolution at face value, that would favor Con as well.
The debate title was more of a question than a proposition.
Its something I have been pondering really hard on and yes, it may seem confusing, I know. What are your thoughts on this topic?
Not mutually exclusive. I forgot what the fancy word for this fallacy is, but I am pretty sure that the topic involves a fallacy here.
My bad, i'll post my argument next time.