Collectivism vs. Individualism

Disclaimer In this round we will be breaking down our opponent’s arguments and showing how they are false. The term “Pro” refers to the affirming side of the debate, Romanii and Kasmic. In the beginning of our opponent’s response, they restate the resolution as, “belief in collectivism is more rational than belief in individualism”. This is not the resolution that both parties agreed to in the beginning of the debate. These two resolutions are different in that something that is irrational can still be preferable to something rational, and vice versa. In order to change the original resolution, both parties must agree to it, and we do not. Collectivism increases the chances of individual success Pro starts off by explaining that in a collectivist society, the individual is more likely to have his/her interests protected than not, because a collectivist society values the majority over the minority, and the majority holds more individuals than the minority, so therefore more needs are met. Are the needs of the minority not important? Are the needs of the minority not valid? Majority-rules reasoning leads to many problematic issues. Pro suggests that societies should make decisions based on what the majority wants, whether or not it is right or not. This often leads to an oppressed minority. If we let majority rule voting, the popular opinion--whether true or false--will direct the society. Societies should run based on what's right, not what's popular. Pro also states that collectivist species tend to be far more prosperous and abundant than [individualist] ones. They cite wolves, elephants, lions, chimpanzees, meerkats, bison, sheep, antelopes, ants, bees, ducks, small fish. What the judges need to realize, is that many of these species are endangered or vulnerable, definitely not prosperous nor abundant. Wolves [2], elephants [3], lions [4], chimpanzees [5], meerkats [6], bison [7], antelopes [8], bees [9], several species of ducks, and small fish (marine life in general) [10] are all nearing extinction. That leaves sheep and ants (although many species of ants are almost extinct). From this we can conclude that the majority of collectivist species are not prosperous, and not abundant, and because of the reasons that Pro stated, this must be a result of collectivism, and therefore the impact of this argument is moved to our side. Individualism has negative social repercussions in practice Unfortunately, our opponent’s whole case relies on assertion. Completely mitigating its impact upon the resolution. Our opponent’s CLAIM that society has become notably more violent after this period of time but show no evidence to support this claim. Nor do they prove that the reason for increasing violence is because of individualism. Even assuming that our opponent’s history is correct, there are many factors involved and this means that they need to do a lot more to prove that individualism is the direct cause of the violence increase. Other factors include: immigration, industrialisation and the value of products. We could easily say that it is the fault of the immigrants that violence is increasing (not that I believe this). We could say that it is the fault of the rapid and constant industrialisation that this is happening. We could say that the value of products is causing violence due to its constant increasing value [1]. Collectivism is a more objective version of individualism Individualism (as defined in R1), does not mention that it prioritizes certain individuals above others [12]. It simply believes that the individual’s opinions is more important than societies as a whole [12]. An individualist will generally take on board the individual’s subjective opinion (as long as it be within reason), and attempt to achieve this. This doesn’t mean that some are valued more than others. It means that everyone gets what they NEED (not want), and therefore the minority will not be excluded from their needs. This may appear subjective to our opponents and some collectivists however when you think about this on a larger scale and in the long term this becomes an objective ideology. By being an individualist, you value everybody in society and as our arguments demonstrate, individualism is an economically successful ideology [13][14]. When analyzing something and showing that its advantage is in regards to the economy this is classified as objective - not subjective [15]. Conclusion To conclude we have won this debate due to the split burden of proof and our opponent's inability to refute our contentions. Since they have not been responded to ours and we have responded to theirs, we win by default. Our contentions have an impact upon the resolution whilst our opponent’s do not. As well as this, they have forfeited twice which is a violation of the rules of this debate. Vote Con! Sources [1]http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.humanesociety.org... [3] http://www.bagheera.com... [4] http://www.iucnredlist.org... [5] http://www.allaboutwildlife.com... [6] http://www.iucnredlist.org... [7] http://www.iucnredlist.org... [8] http://www.usatoday.com... [9] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [10] White-headed, Laysan Teal, Australian Spotted Duck, Bali Duck, Aylesbury Duck, Blue Swedish Duck, Black East Indies Duck, Buenos Aryan Duck, Buff Orpington Duck, Gayuga Duck, Crested Duck, Mallard Duck, Magpie Duck, Muscovy Duck, Northern Pintail Duck, and a lot more. [11] http://www.nytimes.com... [12]https://en.wikipedia.org... [13]http://www.eupedia.com... [14]http://www.pnas.org... [15]http://atlassociety.org...