Likability Verses Capability

It's a well-put retort, however, I am by far the worst opponent you can possibly have. I have the ability to truly look through objectivity which I will prove in a source. I am one of the smartest people alive because of it. Now as you are reading this, I can imagine(not saying) you're thinking what an arrogant jerk I am. First, I'm not arrogant, I am confident. I am only arrogant if I am proven wrong. I do have an accurate estimation of my abilities. Secondly, I am only a jerk because I need practice pointing out the bias in humanity(this is actually the first(relatively speaking) time in my life that I am now debating). Please know that in no way shape or form do I feel that I am not equal to you. We are both human. We do have a right to our opinion, but that does not mean our opinion can't be wrong. When you create an argument, you are implying you are right, thus implying that your opponent is wrong. But even if your opinion is right or wrong, that doesn't mean we have other similarities or differences. I have no intention whatsoever degrading as a fellow human. I look at every word I speak through an objective lens. I no longer think I am right. I know I am right(my opinion will always be based on math). If I am right, and you disagree, then I say you are wrong. If you agree, then from my perspective, you are right. This does not imply, however, that I know everything. I can be mistaken about something because I was unaware of information or evidence that would have lead to a different conclusion. Despite my confidence, I am still human, and I will never have omniscience. Thus to borrow words from Socrates because this is how he viewed himself (he just didn't have the proof that I do), I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information or evidence based on reason and logic. Reason and Logic are always objective. It is our egos that distort reality making it subjective. >>>>I can tell you why "kind people" have a better chance at success (in workplaces) than skilled people, and you can tell me why they don't. If there are "kind people" then wouldn't it imply that there are "not kind" people? You have created a positive term, thus a negative term must exist, or you just become a hypocrite. You cannot say that there are kind people without implying that there are mean people (I really don't like saying "not kind", I'm just using an antonym of "kind" to represent the negative. Please understand anytime I use the word "mean", it is not judgment; I am using it as a negative term in relation to the word "kind"). Everyone this uses hyperbole in debates. Hyperbole causes you to be subjective. Please understand I know what you are trying to say. However, not only are you hyperbolic, now you have made a false conclusion based on that bias which I will address. I will have to correct to myself now, I didn't read your argument correctly (I am still working on interpreting arguments accurately, but sometimes I can mix up the constants. My math isn't wrong, but if I mix up the constants ex. Xtina and Britney, I can still come to being false.) I referred in my first argument that you were implying Britney is mean and Xtina is kind when you actually were implying the other way around. That being said, I am correcting it now. My logic is still right. It's right because it's essentially math(which explains the little room for interpretation). Math is objective. To be objective yourself, you treat everything like math. >>>>I want you to know I did not insinuate that either Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera weren't kind but that Britney is (statistically) more likable and is more popular because of that. So you are not calling Britney kind, you're just arguing that she is more successful because she is kind. I don't understand, how can you argue that "kind people" has a better chance at success in the workplace without first determining they are kind? Wouldn't they just be "people" then? >>>>Considering I never stated that one can only be successful through kindness but that they have a better chance at success, that would be accusation number two. I do concede to this point. What happened is pretty much exactly what my other mistake was. I thought you said 3 when you said 4 and it changed the solution. Better chance at success does not mean only successful. Yes, I was mistaken with that as well. (BTW this is exactly why I'm debating you, to iron out these wrinkles.) >>>>We're defining kindness as likable, like it was stated in the title, and we're defining success as the dictionary would define it, which would be as "the achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted." Kindness does not necessarily lead to likeability. You would be right to say it has better a chance of likeability. I distinguish those two the same way you distinguished between "only successful" and "better chance of success". I did give the reason why "success" is a subjective term, but you didn't understand what I was saying. What plan, desire, or attempt are you trying to achieve in any one workplace? It could be money, fame, popularity, morality or any other motivation or a combination of them. Since each person has to decide for hi/herself, success is always subjective. My success is based on how efficiently I can follow my moral code. Another person's success could be based how much money he/she makes or has. >>>>The question I posed wasn't which subject has a chance at success but which subject has more of a chance, meaning which ability is more likely to succeed in workplaces, and I didn't say some workplaces because I meant which subject has more of a chance in any workplace. Even if you clean up your argument to say "People have a better chance of success in any workplace if they are more likable", I still disagree. That can be true in "most" workplaces if you want to say that, but still not all workplaces. I'll use your metaphor to explain what I mean. "A restaurant" does not compare to to "any workplace". For your metaphor to be accurate, it must be "any restaurant" because "any workplace" conveys the argument to "every workplace in existence". So what if the restaurant you're going to only serves ice cream and soup? Knowing this do you think that a fork is the best tool? Wouldn't you change your behavior to try to be successful in the specific workplace you chose to work at? My argument with the CEO is that you don't have to be likable to get ahead in that workplace. CEO are sociopaths. I'm sure there are a lot of workplaces where people hate their boss. Their boss got there by being cold and calculable. I do imply that being the boss can be a form of success. The source is my proof of my intelligence. This isn't relative to this argument so don't bother if don't care how smart I am. I only said that for my explanation of why I'm doing this. I know what you are trying to say with your argument. I'm sorry because I do agree with you if you're actually saying, "People have a better chance of success in most workplaces if they are more likable." I do say that because most people aren't sociopaths. Since that is true, I say most people can respond better to kindness and compassion which I would say most likely brings more respect and appreciation which in my opinion does mostly lead to being more successful in regards to heart. I will never judge someone for how much money they have, but I do judge the reason why someone has money. If you screwed over someone to get it, then I say your wrong. My source can bring a little light to why I judge that way. Thank you very much for this wonderful opportunity to debate with you. "As iron sharpens iron, so one sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17 Oh this paragraph is mostly my bias, so feel free critique in any way deem necessary or otherwise. I mean that, you can be honest with me. http://www.debate.org...