Login/Sign Up




Does George Bernard Shaw's 'Arms and the Man' show Realism trumping Idealism or Idealism trumping Realism?
Books

joshlind
9 - 3
thrashee
5 - 2


9
Realism trumps Idealism


joshlind
Aug 15, 2007
Case #1
The three acts, essentially forming the entire plot of Shaw’s play, successfully exhibit the idea of the realist trumping the idealist.

 
joshlind
Sep 05, 2007
Case #2
Oh man! I can't believe someone's done this to me again. Why the hell did you accept the challenge if you think it can't be debated? And why did you start rebutting my opening argument if, again, you don't think it's debatable? If I didn't know the rules of convinceme and didn't value my membership...I'd rightly tell you off. You don't think some things are subjective? Do you think everything is "written in stone"? Lets debate about THAT, make the challenge man, I'll accept, but CHRIST, THAT ISN'T THIS DEBATE. It was clear in the title (and I was fine with waiting for a serious challenger) that there were but two positions to this debate. Since I selected Realism, you, by default, have selected Idealism - I suggest you format the remainder of your arguments to suit that purpose. If you'd read the play, you'd quickly realize that IT IS about realism and idealism, and for anyone who's read the play, that's pretty nearly indisputable. By the end of the play, it becomes obvious that one of them (realism or idealism) is the victor. (i.e. Bluntschli vs. Sergius). It can be tricky to determine which though, since it can be shown that Bluntschli was in fact the more idealistic of all the characters, while been attributed as the realist. I suppose I shouldn't even have told you this, but you didn't seem to know why there was an argument here (again, I wonder why you accepted the challenge), and I already know how to show that Bluntschli's being an idealist, doesn't change the fact that the play demonstrates realism trumping idealism.

 
joshlind
Sep 05, 2007
Case #3
To respond to some of your specifics:

1 - I am prepared to show that the play does successfully show realism trumping idealism, but only if you're going to take the debate seriously. I don't want to waste the arguments; I could recreate the debate in the future, in the hopes of having it accepted seriously.

2 - Since I am taking the position that Shaw was showing realism trump idealism in his play I do, in fact, propose that he intended to do so. It baffles me that you see this as preposterous; I think it a much stranger thing to imagine that he accomplished this by accident!

3 - I think I've shown you that this isn't a subjective debate, that there is in fact a correct position, and my source is the best that can be had - u Arms and the Man /u by George Bernard Shaw. You'll find it in the Evidence section.

 
joshlind
Sep 06, 2007
Case #4
1. First of all thank you; your respect is much appreciated, especially considering the gist of our previous communications. If you want to argue that it can't be shown - create the debate. But honestly, this one was pretty clear in the title, and I've shown you a way to argue for idealism in this play, you may be wise to use it or another, since in fact this is what this is about.

2. Again, thank you. It is a pleasure to debate against someone who can admit when they are mistaken, and I hold that ability in high regard.

3. Since you do now agree that Shaw must have intended what he accomplished, it should follow that the outcome must be objective - unless of course he was attempting to show that neither realism or idealism was the victor. And like I said, it can be shown that he was trying to accomplish this through the play itself.

I most certainly did include the play in my evidence section, and it was written by Shaw himself. The first piece of evidence entitled "Realism in Arms and the Man", is a collection of essays concerning him. The second link "The Play", is u Arms and the Man(/u) by George Bernard Shaw. It can be read in a couple of hours, and will show that the subject of realism vs. idealism was certainly no mistake on his part!

 
joshlind
Sep 06, 2007
Case #5
I'm extremely pleased and relieved that our manner of speaking to each other has become respectful. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, you can check out links to debates where we go at each other at the end of my post.

Though I love a heated argument, and a battle of wits, I was beginning to feel real resentment towards you. I'm much more pleased to do things this way, and actually have to admit that you seem like a very knowledgeable person. You defend your beliefs steadfastly, which is obviously like me, and something I admire. Yet, you were also able to concede where needed while still maintaining your general position - something even more admirable.

I must chuckle at your suggestion to reading the play, as I still of course maintain that one who had read it properly would have understood some 'assumptions' I made. I was never able to claim that you hadn't read it, and wouldn't have risked doing so, so it's great that you're being a good sport about it.

I'm more than willing to wait for you to read it, and if you agree with my position afterwards, we never have to continue it, and I urge potential voters and fellow debaters to regard this with respect.

I think the thing that makes me happiest is that from all the previous negativity came a very positive thing - I'm sure you'll love the play, and quite pleased to have encouraged its being read in such a way!

 
joshlind
Sep 06, 2007
Case #6
Children bringing cellphones to school?
http://convinceme.net/viewDebate.php?dib=842

and

Is wikipedia a reliable source?
http://convinceme.net/viewDebate.php?dib=849

Mine and thrashee's verbal assaults can be found in the comments sections of these debates.

 
3
This is an impossible "debate", as all views will be subjective


thrashee
Sep 05, 2007
Case #1
There is no real "debate" here, because the debate itself hinges upon one's own personal interpretation of the question.

The "debate" at hand is subjective, by nature, and thus, you cannot properly debate it.

 
thrashee
Sep 05, 2007
Case #2
"The three acts, essentially forming the entire plot of Shaw’s
play, successfully exhibit the idea of the realist trumping the
idealist."

The play is only 3 acts long...so of course they form "the entire plot of Shaw's play".

You haven't demonstrated why they "successfully exhibit the idea of the realist trumping the idealist."

Furthermore, including the adverb "successfully" connotes that this was the author's intent, which is such a prepostorous assumption to begin with, that it only proves my own argument further:

This is inherently a subjective debate to begin with. Unless you have direct sources from Shaw himself indicating the intent of this interpretation, this argument is hereby null and void.

 
thrashee
Sep 06, 2007
Case #3
1. I find myself having to respect your first point. I'm prepared to argue that this can't really be proven, if you'd like. But unfortunately, I cannot argue your converse, that idealism trumps realism.

2. Fair enough--I have to agree, preposterous was much too strong a word to use, and authors do, in fact, intend on many things whilst writing.

3. I disagree on this last point. People have a habit of confusing subjective versus objective reasoning all the time. Unfortunately in this case, the topic at hand is a work of fiction, and the only thing you can really state about it, in the end, is your own--and others'--interpretations of that work. Interpretations, mind you, are inherently subjective entities.

Also, the source you listed in your evidence is not written by George Bernard Shaw, the author of the same play about which this debate was formed. Rather, it's a collection of essays on Shaw. In other words--more interpretations of a work.



 
thrashee
Sep 06, 2007
Case #4
Thank you for your understanding--I was pretty attacking elsewhere when I should not have been, and you are demonstrating a large amount of grace.

It seems I have one of two options: concede this debate now or read the play and do my best to take the original position.

If you're willing to wait, I'm willing to give it a go.

 
thrashee
Sep 07, 2007
Case #5
Ok, here goes:

I've tried every possible angle I can think of to argue that idealism trumps realism in this play, and in the end, the best I could possibly do would be contrived twistings of causality:

One could argue it was idealism that served as the impetus for Raina to become endeared to Bluntschli, but in this case idealism is just the catalyst against which Raina revolts (against both her own Bourgeoisie sensibilities and Sergius).

Or one might argue that Louka's fierce self-righteousness was its own idealism...she does, in the end, get to be an Empress of sorts; but here again, it is not idealism winning so much as an ironic twist of fate.

Nicola--now there might be a.....no, Nicola was a pragmatist, through and through.

So...Joshlind, try as I might, I simply cannot construe an argument based upon the position I so hastily accepted. I must concede this debate, but I hope you can reopen it and maybe someone else, perhaps better versed in this, can rise to the challenge.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

angmar battle of riddle tom vs. witchking . 10 2008 50 9/11 911 is it real or not A a hard days night Abortion adsf adult afganistan age Agent Agent Gibbs aliens alternative energy America American amnesty anarchism Ancient warfare animal rights Animal Welfare Act Animals another anthropogenic ANWR Any battle (not a war). anything Arab Arabs arms arms and the man Army Authority AWA awesome Ayn Rand bad bag banned bar Barack Batman be bear beatles beer Beer Wine bella Beneficial Best better bible Bilbo book Books Bush California Capitalism Captain Jack Sparrow Captain Jack Sparrow VS Agent Gibbs carbon cars Catholic Church Catholisism change Chinese choice Christ christianity Christianty Church Civil climate CO2 comedy Comics Conflict conscription conspiracy Convinceme.net country Creation cruel culture cyber cyberpunk darwin DC debate Defy deport Design dozens drilling Drive driving drug war drugs Dumb*ss dumbledore dysgenics ebooks economics edward eminem employment end of the world Ender endit Energy English environment ethical ethics eugenics Evil evolution experience Fairness doctrine fantasy Fast Fatah fiction fight force foreign oil forever Frankie Franks free speech freedom Fuel funny game gandalf Gasoline Gay Marriage genetics george harrison Gibbs global Global Warming Global Warming Humans Caused it cause climate change God God Works and Faith are Needed in Salvation in the Last Judgement good goofy government Green Guns Hamas hardback Harry Potter Hate Hawthorne Healthcare Hebrew hegemony heroes Hillary hip hop history homo House house buying hunt hunting idealism illegals immigrants impeach Intelligent Design International realations Iran iraq iraq war peace democrat republican Islam Israel issue it's iunno J Jack Sparrow jesus Jew Jewish Jews JFK JK Rowling john lennon JRR Judaism kaka KFC kids KKK kobe Koran LA language last.fm law Laws lebron Legal lexicon license live feedings logical long lose Love Machinima magic magic. mandatory Marijuana Marijuana Legalized 50 states Marines Marvel Medicine Mental microsoft Middle East military minimum Misleading money mongoloids Moral Dilema morality morals movie movies music Muslim Myspace nations natural NCIS never ninjas nitpick no no difference noisy neighbors Novel NWA obama obesity Objectivism of Of Mice and Men Oil opponent Opponent's opponent's choice Opponents Choice opposite or overweight Palestine Palestinian Palestinians Pandora paperback PAS paul mccartney permit PETA philosophy physician pirates play Police politics pop Power powerpoint President pride Primitivism Prop 8 Pull Out punk Qu'ran R R.C. Race