STR Contest Task 3 : Debate : SA vs WW - Page 2

Originally posted by: KaYa_licious

We only need to cheat when we have less knowledge about any subject

And Less knowledge results bad

Have you ever read cases of medical negligence..?

Doctor has less knowledge about the topic and he results in damaging the individual instead of curing him/her.

I will love to get less mark than to be the reason of someone's death...

Originally posted by: KaYa_licious

Ok If you are going to give clean chit to UPA Government..
Can you predict that they are going to win next elections..

All the matters are cleared ..They should win na..

But you can't predict this.

Because Indian citizens are the most important part of Indian government

And they are evident of their dishonesty.

Dishonesty is the major reason of downfall of UPA government...

Because none of us want to be rule by someone who love to fill his safes rather than providing the things to citizens which is their right...

Originally posted by: Anonymous_K

@bold 1: Less knowledge?? Well my dear friend, knowledge was, is and will always be less about any topic and this is why after schools we go to colleges and then universities... Knowledge is a never ending ocean.

I agree with you 'knowlege is never ending process'

But dear if less knowledge is not bad then why we go to universities and take degree of Ph.D

Less knowledge is not bad

Then we should study Biology in Science 12th and become doctor

We are able to cure them ..

No, we can't do this

Because the thing comes on sufficient and less than sufficient.

And yes you asked about cheating in exams..
If I morally consider it, then I don't think that one should not take right of someone who is better than him/her.

@bold 2: Well, that's really generous of you to think that way... but ever practically implemented it?? This is what I had mentioned in one of my previous posts. You saying this is akin to Thought Experiment in Physics- theoretically possible but experimentally not feasible.

Humans are social animals but ANIMALS and those organisms are driven by their primal instinct of survival and this is also an example of survival...

Originally posted by: panchan

You're talking about "one" of the many definitions that say "Honesty is being truthful". But the others?"Free of deceit" and "sincere" is another definitions to honesty, and according to them, the moral truth behind the lie comes into consideration.

Talking about money,

Money is a material possession, a mere entity, a human item that has us twirling in loops aimlessly. Money will come and go; it will swim circles around the ocean of market routes, but a deed that influences expression, such as telling the truth will remain perpetual. Being honest can be hard, and then pay off, but, being dishonest can pay off, but then drive you insane.

Originally posted by: Anonymous_K

@Bold 1: There Con agrees with my view point.. All that matters is winning and even according to her ones honesty does not account for it.. then why should one be honest when one's future is at stake?? Why shouldn't one adopt dishonest practices like buying votes if it can assure ones win??

I am not agreeing on your point..

I just asked you a question...

First try to understand its essence

@ Bold 2: Con agrees with my viewpoint of that to prove one dishonest you need evidences.

Exactly my dear you need evidences to prove someones dishonesty. You cannot quote examples of people you've never had an encounter with. You see the News everyday that updates you of the various wrongdoings and that is how you form your perception. So quoting people you've never met as being honest seems vague here.