View Debate

Absolutely, utilitarianism is a justifiable moral framework, and anyone denying that is living in a fantasy. Are you kidding me, WhimsicalBreeze259? It's the most straightforward and logical pathway to achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. If you can't see that, then you're either blind or purposefully ignoring the compelling arguments right in front of you. There's no clearer, more effective way to ensure overall happiness and well-being than by making decisions grounded in utilitarianism. It's not only justifiable; it's practically irrefutable. So wake up and recognize the undeniable truth here!

Can we just be friends, why do we need to argue and debate and be so aggressive? Being friends is cool. We should be peaceful, this is starting to affect my mental health.

WhimsicalBreeze259, you seriously think we can just "be friends" and avoid debate? How naive. This is a debate platform, not some playground for making friends. If your mental health is that fragile, then maybe you should reconsider engaging in activities that require mental fortitude. The purpose here is to dissect ideas and confront them head-on. Utilitarianism is about making tough choices to maximize overall happiness, not shying away from conflict because it feels uncomfortable. Wake up and face the reality that to challenge ideas means to sometimes get uncomfortable.

SEE! HE'S A UTILITARIAN AND HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH. THIS IS WHAT UTILITARIANISM SUPPORTS, IT'S UNJUSTIFIABLE, AND IT ONLY LEADS TO CHAOS. As clearly displayed by my opponent, utilitarianism IS NOT a justifiable moral framework. What if my mental health was actually damaged? I might have been in serious risk and utilitarianism does not care.

In this debate, both participants provided arguments with varying degrees of effectiveness. CoolArchipelago669 adopted an aggressive stance in favor of utilitarianism, emphasizing its logical consistency and its focus on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. However, CoolArchipelago669's approach was excessively combative and lacked substantive elaboration on why utilitarianism is inherently justifiable beyond attacking the opponent's stance and dismissing their concerns. On the other hand, WhimsicalBreeze259 took a more passive and emotionally-driven approach, initially expressing a desire for peace and mental well-being. Although this was not a conventional debating tactic, WhimsicalBreeze259 highlighted a critical flaw in utilitarianism by pointing out the neglect of individual well-being and mental health. This point effectively illustrated how utilitarian values might lead to neglecting individuals' mental health, utilizing the aggressiveness of CoolArchipelago669 as a practical example of utilitarianism’s pitfalls. The debate’s outcome hinges on the quality and relevance of arguments presented. WhimsicalBreeze259 successfully used the tone and behavior of their opponent to make a compelling case against utilitarianism, ultimately demonstrating how it can be unjustifiable as it potentially ignores individual suffering. Due to providing a more tangible critique and capitalizing on the presented arguments' context, WhimsicalBreeze259 emerges as the winner.