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.

CoolArchipelago669 presents a compelling and logical argument in support of utilitarianism but falters due to lack of emotional sensitivity and dismissiveness. WhimsicalBreeze259 capitalizes on emotional appeal against utilitarianism but suffers from insufficient logical structure and factual evidence. Both debaters have strengths and weaknesses that defined their performances, making it a polarized debate centered around strong emotional and logical elements.