Does every conflict have a winner?
December 15th, 2008
After reading Rikki Tikki Tavi and other literature, consider whether every conflict has a winner. After student responses are posted, you will be expected to respond two other students’ responses.
Responsive Writing | Comments (35)35 Responses to “Does every conflict have a winner?”
Leave a Reply
Every conflict can have a winner. In Rikki Tiki Tavi, Rikki was the winner but didn’t want to brag about winning. This would make him a good winner. The conflict in rikki tikki tavi was Rikki had to try to keep his family and friends safe with out hurting himself. THE conflict was resolved after Rikki killed Nag and his wive by using his braveness.
No I do not believe that every conflict has a winner. There can be a truce between the conflicting parties. For example in the Korean War both sides declared a truth and returned back to their sides so there was no winner or loser. Also, in a duel if things happen at the same time, there might not be a winner. That is my opinion on this question. This question can go either way. You can defend it either way but I believe that there doesn’t always have to be a winner.
I do not think that every conflict has a winner because you can lose something valuable to you while the conflict is occuring. Then, you wouldn’t have completely won the conflict. That is what happens; when the conflict gets too serious you have a chance of losing something you love. If you win a conflict, one person wins, but the other becomes hurt, either internally or externally. That is not a good thing. Conflicts can either be resolved in a good way or a bad way. You should always try to resolve it in a good way.
To me not every conflict has a winner. You can win some conflicts, but also you can lose some. In every conflict there is a guarenteed outcome of either a win, a loss, or a tie. A tie is when two opponents have the same score or number of points. A tie isn’t a win or a loss. It is simply just a possibility that can occur at the end of a game or competition. Whatever the outcome of the competition, you should always be a good sport. You should never brag, or complain about losing or winning. For example, in Rikki Tikki Tavi, Rikki had a supposed “win” against the snakes, and made peace come to the yard. He never bragged about his victory, and always remained caring. Rikki Tikki is a great role model for young people, and everyone should should be like Rikki in the sense of not bragging.
I think it depends on the conflict. If the conflict is not as important then i don’t think it matters wether there is a winner or not.I think if the conflict has an important meaning then it is going to have a winner.If u have a conflict you are hurting something you love and you are feeling good because you have won the conflict but you are not thinking on how the other person feels. Conflicts should always end in a good way because if it ends in a bad way that means you wasted your time trying to prove a point.I don’t think there is a winner because i believe your not thinking about how the other person would feel.
I think it depends on the conflict. If the conflict is not as important then i don’t think it matters wether there is a winner or not.I think if the conflict has an important meaning then it is going to have a winner.If u have a conflict you are hurting something you love and you are feeling good because you have won the conflict but you are not thinking on how the other person feels. Conflicts should always end in a good way because if it ends in a bad way that means you wasted your time trying to prove a point.I don’t think there is a winner because i believe your not thinking about how the other person would feel.
in every conflict there isn’t always a winner. for example this year there was a football game between the Phillidelphia Eagles and the Cincinati Bengles, the game ended in a tie. A football game is like a conflict and who ever get in the endzone the most times wins. the contest between the Eagles and the Bengles was a great one and that just proves that a conflict can end in a tie.
I think that not every conflict has a winner. It also depends on the conflict. If it is a little fight about something stupid, like if your sister stole your shirt, then what usually happens to me is that we work it out and my sister asks if she can borrow my shirt instead of steal it. If it’s a bigger fight the end result usually ends up the same way as well. With a few acceptions. Like if my sister told on me for something that I did wrong, but I really didn’t do anything, then she would get the blame and be in trouble for telling on me even when I didn’t do anything wrong. Not every conflict has to have a winner, depending on what kind of conflict it is.
In almost every case, it is possible that the conflict has a winner. If, there was a conflict between two people or parties, the true winner could be the one who gets over their problem with the person. The “winner” would just stop fighting with the person/group and make a truce. If the conflict were something trivial, the person who is the winner would just compromise with the person they are fighting with. However, if the problem is over something offensive and/or wrong, a person should not compromise their beliefs. Still, there are so many possibilities and ways to get around a problem and solve that problem. Being the “winner” of a conflict doesn’t necessarily have to mean whoever was right, or whoever got what they wanted. The true winner doesn’t think the outcome matters, and is happy after the conflict. If the conflict is something physical like a fight, and both people get hurt, the true winner would be the one who said sorry afterwards.
There is not always a winner. Sometimes it is not good to have a winner because someone winds up getting their feelings hurt. The best thing to do is compromise. SOmetimes there is also more than one winner because there are many ways to get around a problem and solve that problem.
I think every conflict has a winner. In a conflict, there usually is a winner because a character or person solves the problem. In Rikki Tikki Tavi, Rikki won the conflict by killing Nag and his wife, and protecting the family. But after he won, he did not brag. Rikki also attempted to keep his family and friends safe without hurting himself. So in this conflict there was a winner.
I do not think every conflict has a winner. I think this because if there is a conflict between two friends then you both loose. This is so because even if you win you are going to upset your friend. That might make your friend too upset and break your freindship up forevery. Then you will feel bad that you ruined your friendship over a dumb fight. In conclusion every conflict does not have a winner because you will be losing something close to you.
To me “winner” and “loser” are just names. I feel that it it very hurtful to someone if they loose. I dont think anyone should have to go through that. It also depends on what the conflice is, if it is a debate than the outcome can be neutral. If it is a game the out come can be a tie. You dont want to hurt someones feelings if the conflict isnt major. In some cases like the election there had to be a winner, but when Obama won he didn’t brag and make McCain feel bad did he? That is also a question to ask yourself if you “win”… Is it worth making them feel bad? I dont nsee why everything must be a competition who needs winners or loosers. They are just names
To me “winner” and “loser” are just names. I feel that it it very hurtful to someone if they loose. I dont think anyone should have to go through that. It also depends on what the conflice is, if it is a debate than the outcome can be neutral. If it is a game the out come can be a tie. You dont want to hurt someones feelings if the conflict isnt major. In some cases like the election there had to be a winner, but when Obama won he didn’t brag and make McCain feel bad did he? That is also a question to ask yourself if you “win”… Is it worth making them feel bad? I dont nsee why everything must be a competition who needs winners or loosers. They are just names
Not every conflict can have a winner because there is a possibility that both sides win or both sides lose. There is either a winner, a loser, or a tie in sports, all based on the points. Every game is a conflict where two teams are going against each other for the most points. If there is the same number of points, there is a tie. The team or person who has more points is the winner. The team or person with the fewest number of points is the loser. Some sports try not to have a tie, but soccer and possibly hockey can have a tie easily.
“The win is in the eye of the beholder.” That means that two people in a conflict could compromise and each could get part of what they wanted, therefore there would be two winners. To compromise you have to give up part of what you want to get part of what you want. There could also be two losers if both people are unwilling to compromise or agree on one idea. Then they come to what is called an impasse where both people lose.
Usually, yes there is a winner to a conflict. For instance, there is a winner in a gymnastics competition and a loser in a football game. However, there isn’t always a winner. This is beause if you have an argument with someone, each person has their own oppinion and side of the story. Therefore, no one is a winner, nor is someone a loser, although they might think that they are. In addition to this, sometimes there are ties in sports or other competitions. This is why I think that a conflict doesn’t always have a winner.
No, not every conflict has to have a winner. In some situations there is more than one possible solution. Some situations don’t even have to have a winner, it can end in a tie or be resolved. Sometimes when someone wins, other’s feelings get hurt. A good winner wouldn’t brag about winning, they would be a good sport, and not make a big deal about it. I believe that if the people that are in the conflict are nice, then it wouldn’t matter who won or lost because saying that would just hurt someone’s feelings.
Do I think every conflict have a winner? My opinion is no. I think no one is right and no one is wrong. People have their own opinions about certain topics. In “Rikki Tikki Tavi,” there was a winner, but some stories no one wins, there is just a lesson to the story. So to sum this up, i think no one is a winner nor a loser.
I don’t think every conflict has a winner. Sometimes nobody can win and it can end in a tie. Not many people like ties, but they can happen. If there is a winner, they might brag to the loser or make the loser feel bad. That is when ties are good. They can prevent peoples’ feelings from getting hurt. Either way, if you win or lose, you should be a good one. Do not brag if you win, and do not feel bad if you lose.
I do think that every conflict has a winner. It think this because some always has to win a argument. If know one wins then a fight with your friends will never be won. When i say won i do not mean as someone is better than one another. What I mean is that someone is right. I no one is right than you can be fighting for a long time.
I do think that every conflict has a winner. It think this because some one always has to win a argument. If know one wins then a fight with your friends will never be won. When I say won I do not mean that someone is better than one another. What I mean is that someone is right. If no one is right than you can be fighting for a long time.
No, i do not beleive that every conflict has a winner. SOme conflicts might not end. Also some people might compromise and settle things. in some sports there is a possible tie. Football,Baseball,basketball and many more sports can be ended up as a tie. The onyl sport i dont know that can be eneded up as a tie is wrestling. Also if you say you win it can be very harmfull to anybody who takes it seriously. If you brag or anything you can emotionly make those peoples lifes horrer. Trust me it has happened to me alot. But if there is a tie than most people tend to let it go and then become friends again. This is what i beleive the resolution of every conflict is
For every conflict, there might not be a winner. Sometimes both people lose. It is also a good thing not to have a winner because it could hurt someone else’s feelings if they lose. However, other conflicts can have winners, but sometimes they just both lose the situation.
I think that every conflict does not always have a winner. Some conflicts can have no winner where both sides think what they say or do is better it’s a tie. I personally think no conflict has a winner because whoever is argueing thinks that they won and the other lost.
Not every conflict has a winner because, some of the time it’s a matter of opinion. You cant really say, “you’re wrong because that’s not what I think.”. If someone says, “I THINK Risk is the greatest board game.” you don’t have the right to say, ” you’re totally wrong, because my friends and I all agreed that Monopoly is.”. Take for example, if your favorite sport is bowling and all of your other friend say, archery; just because the majority says one thing doesn’t mean it is.
Not every conflict has a winner. It depends on the conflict to determine if there is a winner or not. Things like debates, voting, school contests, and sport games have a winner. Bad things like fights don’t have a winner. All that those things only make people feel bad. I also think a winner is a person who values what they have like family and friends!
Not every conflict has a winner. Some conflicts do, and some don’t. In Rikki Tikki there was a winner, Rikki. He was in a conflict with Nag and Nagaina and he won by killing both snakes. However, this does not happen in all cases. Sometimes, there is no winner or loser. The people involved in the conflict could both compromise, which means that they agree that there would be no winner and they would both just be equal or they could both get something that they wanted. In other cases, both people could loose. For example, if two people were fighting over the correct answer to a math problem, and it ended up that the answer was a number that neither of them had, they would both be losers. Two people can also be winners. For example, if two people were fighting over the answer to a math problem, there could be many different answers or solutions to the problem and they could both be correct; therefore, the are both winners. A final thing that could happen is that two people, or groups of people, could tie. This happens mostly in sports games when they are completing against each other and both teams have the same amount of points at the end of the game. There are many different situations that could occur, and like I have said, not every conflict has to have a winner.
I personally believe that not every conflict has a winner. Many conflicts end up in either a tie, or eventually come to an agreement. Most people believe that there is always a winner, but this is not the case in some situations such as an internal conflict. Although there are some situations where this does not happen (such as in the story of Rikki-Tiki-Tavi), many people who get into arguments/conflicts with one another usually sort things out and come to an agreement. In conclusion, not all conflicts have a winner.
I do not think every conflict has a winner. I believe my opinion because most of the time two people or group of people solve the problem. Usually they would compromise to get to the solution. This also depends on the type of conflict. If the conflict was a sibling fight between my brother and I, we work things out to have no winner. We like to make everything fair. Also a sport is a type of conflict. In sports sometimes you have ties, so that means there is no winner. In sports it is usually not good to have a winner because most of the time the winning team brags and the other team gets hurt. This is why I believe not every conflict has a winner.
I believe every conflict has a winner. In Rikki Tikki Tavi their was a winner which was Rikki Tikki. In after twenty years Jimmy Wells gets someone to arrest a criminal friend. A conflict might not be solved in a book. It might take more books to fully express what and how everything is happening. Their will always be a winner in a conflict no matter how many books it takes.
A conflict can happen in two ways, internally and externally. Internal conflicts are between yourself and you wile external conflict is physical. Not all conflicts have a winner, but both can have the one or ones that don’t win. In some situations, there is a winner. That “winner” is the one who proves their opinion to be correct, wile the one or ones who didn’t win, failed to. In other situations, there is no winner. Not you or your opponent(s) prove their opinion to be true; therefore, in this situation, all failed to prove their opinion and no one was the “winner”. From the Question: “Does every conflict have a winner”, my answer is that some conflicts have a winner, and some do not.
No, not evry coflict has to have a winner. For example, two people could be fighting over a certain object. If the object breaks, then they both lose. Also not every conflict needs to have a loser. So neither of them one or lost. People usually call this a draw. A conflict can have a winner, though. And the that must mean it can also have a loser. For example, if two people are having a race, and one of the gets to the finish line first, then that person is the winner. The person that got to the finish line last is the loser. In conlusion, every conflict does not have to have a winner (or loser) but it can have a winner (or loser).
I don’t believe every cinflict has a winner. I think this is so because you don’t deserve a reward or acknowledgement for fighting. It also depends on the conflict. Fighting with your friends is something you get over and no one wins. Fighting with you siblings is the same thing you just talk it over and work it out. My brother and I or my sister and I fight all the time, practiccaly everyday, but we usually work it out by flipping a coin or rock paper scissors. That is why I think there is no winner with every conflict.
Every conflict may not have a winner. In Rikki Tikki Tavi, though, Rikki’s conflicts were ended and he was usually the winner. Although Rikki won his conflicts, there are conflicts that are still not resolved such as global warming and if we will be able to live on Mars. These conflicts have been around for a very long time. That is why every conflict doesn’t have a winner.
I do not believe that every conflict has a winner. Winners and losers should not be declared because in the end, everyone worked hard and made a great effort. The people n the situation or conflict normally come to an agreement so no one actually “wins” or “loses”. If there is a sports game, there normally is a winner so that winner should not be selfish about it or mean to the opponents. Sometimes in sports events, there are ties, which proves that there is not always a winner. In conflicts or fights with your friends, everyone normally has an agreement and makes up. In conclusion, there is not a winner for everything.