Instigator / Pro
13
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#1810

Does a good, perfect man struggle with evil

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1490
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Description

Definitions:
Good: the state of acting on influences to be a better person today than yesterday. It is not a static condition, but continually dynamic, demanding of one to not just espouse goodness, but to be committed to its action in all circumstances.

Perfection: living a perfect life is living a life without error of any kind, being good under any circumstance. It is always making correct choices to be good when faced with every circumstance.

Struggle: either a combat against an initiating assailant, be it from an external or internal source, or combat initiated by the person against another person, or an idea conflicting with their own.

Evil: The opposite of good. Any obstacle that attempts to prevent the effort of a good person to act contrary to their sense to be good. The choice to be an obstacle to one's self, or others, to use their agency to be good. The effort to entice another, or the self, to seek power, pride, and possession; the roots of all evil thoughts or acts.

This is appropriately a philosophic, not a religious debate. The definitions above may seem to have a religious tone, but the challenge is to conduct this debate purely from the limited definitions of all terms defined herein, which have not referred to religion, or deity [good or evil], or morality couched in religious jargon. No holy writ ought to have place, even by reference, in the debate. The challenge, then, is to question whether even a perfect person still must struggle to avoid evil behavior.

-->
@oromagi

Thank you for voting. Very concise assessment.

Only two days remain in the voting window.

-->
@DrSpy

Vote removed:

I am not good at this formal stuff.
Pro: Argument "that a perfect person still struggles each and every time such circumstances are presented."
Con: Argument "what is good", "what is evil", "what is struggle", blah blah... "not all challenge is a struggle"
Biggest problem for Pro. He never uses the phrase "every time" anywhere outside of Round1. So he just kinda says it, and never proves that a struggle happens always. He never showed it happens every time in a clear way.
Con gave very good reason why a challenge is not a struggle every time.
The definitions of good, evil etc all are pointless Pro said there is a struggle every time. Con said sometimes it might not be a struggle. Absolutes are a problem. But Con gave good reasons why struggle every time is not necessary. The analogues are funny. A vegetarian fox. hehehe But it worked. I understood what Con was trying to say. I agree now that a struggle does not occur every time. Points for Con.
Pro referenced religious sources, even when he said he wont. Con did not reference anything. Tie.
Spelling and stuff. Tie. Better then I could do.
Pro was very unfair to con by going religious when the promise was not. Thats bullshit. Manipulative wordsmith bullshit. Point to Con.

Please check your DM

continued

"The rubric of what is good, and what better means relative to good is not defined or established. In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. A fox is good relative to her family when she steals a chicken. She is not good relative to the chickens family, or the farmer. And when she gets better at snatching fresh poultry relative to her family, the chickens family would undisputably opine very differently."

Ok, so let me work this out. I will go back

"The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. " In a much simpler way what is good for the goose, may not be good for the gander. "

Eh?

Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0

"If the good is tall than better would be taller. What is missing from the definition of the debate is a baseline of what the value is."

What?

" I use the Value Theory to support this position."

Lets hang on a second here eh! "What position"? The position that the good is tall than better would be taller?

DrSpy "I thank my opponent for their opening argument. I would like to point out a discrepancy in the title, and the narrative of the debate description.

The title says: "Does a good, perfect man struggle with evil"

The last sentence of the opening narrative says "a perfect person still must struggle to avoid evil behavior."

I am going to start out by awarding DrSpy with a conduct violation from the word go.
I do not think there are any contradictions, nor discrepancies, and the suggestion is unrequired
Quite simply, there is no contradiction.
fauxlaws opening does not have to be the same as his title. DrSpy takes it out of context. I actually fail to see his logic.

Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0

"The difference is the first statement deals with an undefined struggle, the second statement qualifies that struggle to be for the purposes of avoiding evil behavior. Both are addressed by my position. My position is one that comes down tot he definitions of Good, Evil, and most importantly Struggle that have been provided."

I find this incomprehensible. It makes little sense actually.

"The definition of good: " the state of acting on influences to be a better person today than yesterday. It is not a static condition, but continually dynamic, demanding of one to not just espouse goodness, but to be committed to its action in all circumstances."

This all lacks clarity. It is incomprehensible. Impossible to even work out how it relates to the previous paragraph

"I submit the first issue is the phrase 'better person today than yesterday' has no reference point. The phrase could be a better Nazi, a better KKK member, a better monk. "

I do not see how he made this leap to what he is now discussing. there appeared to be no logical connection

Conduct now only 3-0
sourcing 5-0
argument 0-0
S&G 0-0

tbc

Rd1 continued

"Application of being perfect
Most people would say, “That formula can be applied for two or three day’s, but, inevitably, we fail.” Yes. But, what if we didn’t? What if we last five days, then ten, then more? It is possible, just unlikely.

As the days of perfection mount, having a continuous string of a variety of choices, at least one of which will be to respond with imperfect evil, that becomes a challenge with potential loss of the perfect record. Is that a struggle?

John Wesley commented, “A person may be sincere who has all his natural tempers, pride, anger, lust, self-will. But he is not perfect until his heart is cleansed from these, and all its other corruptions.”[v]"!

Where did John Lesley say this? I simply do not see it

Argument 0-0
conduct 0-4
source 0-5
S&G 0-0

On to DrSpy

fauxlaw begins round 1 - Does a perfect person struggle with evil?

No one is perfect for the reason that they are immune from evil; no one can be that immune. In fact, H.J. McCloskey, described as an atheologian [one who argues for the nonexistence of God], of the University of Melbourne, maintains that it is unavoidable. He claims a construct of the following:[i]

Fauxlaw commits what i consider a source violation right at the beginning. He attributes words to a person. Paraphrases that person.
Does not provide the quote.
Instead provides a link that does not even work.
Therefore voter needs to go searching for "his" work. No need. There is the ability to "quote" what is being quoted, and link it above the quote.
So no searching needs to be done. It simply should not have to be.

Sources . 0-1

"[1] God is omnipotent
[2] God is omniscient
[3] God is perfectly good
[4] Evil exists

Conduct violation. fauxlaw stated no mention of religion

source 0-1
conduct 0-1

"McCloskey contends that even if one, two, or three of the above statements are true, all four cannot be true. He argues that if God is omnipotent, He could end all suffering in the world, but He has not; therefore, He is nonexistent. McCloskey argues the same point for God’s omniscience."

Conduct violation. God of the bible

source 0-1
conduct 0-2

Again, continuing to paraphrase. No quote of where McCloskey said this was provided on the playing table.

"McCloskey ignores, but it must be considered, that neither omnipotence nor omniscience imply that either power must be used, only that it is available. The wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” ideology says otherwise: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”[ii]"

Another source violation

Sources 0-2

"The idea is to try to negotiate in peace, but be prepared to wield strength. McCloskey further ignores that God employs a third construct in addition to omnipotence and omniscience: the free agency of man."

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[iii]

Conduct violation
Another source violation.
Quite simply, we do not have the original scriptures, so we cannot use the bible as a reliable source

conduct 0-3
source 0-3

"We often interpret this passage as allowing Adam to eat of every tree except of the tree of knowledge, but that is not at all what is said. God said that Adam could “freely eat” “of every tree of the garden,” including the tree of knowledge. It’s just that eating from the tree of knowledge had a consequence apparently different than the other trees, but God’s gift of agency to man remains intact. There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad."

Conduct 0-4
Source 0-3

Will leave out the conjecture.

"How to be perfect
Based on the definition of “perfect” as offered in the debate description above, the question must be posed: How do we become perfect? One article, The Science of Decision-Making: 5 Ways to Make the Right Decision Every Timesays yes.[iv] It contends that a formula exists to do just that:
1. Focus on the big picture.
2. Know what you value.
3. Recognize and overcome the sunk-cost [a losing path] bias.
4. Create the necessary environment.
5. Take immediate action by the 5-second rule [If you do not take action – physical movement - in the first five seconds, the brain will dismiss the idea]."

Another source violation. I should be able to read on that page where The Science of Decision-Making said this, and not just take the debeters word for it, or go searching for it.

conduct 0-4
source 0-4

TBC

Ok. Using a new sytstem i will be casting a vote. Both parties will have plenty time to object, as they will be made aware before-hand

-->
@Nevets

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nevets // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro, 1 to Con.

>Reason for Decision:
Convincing argument - I feel Pro had the better philisophical argument, and i agree with his moral definition of "good" over that of Con, that seems more apologetic regarding the moral definition, and i feel it is quite apparent and clear just what definition of "good" Pro was talking about.
Reliable sources - I would not say that Pros sources were really great, and i do not see how much value any source can have regarding a personal opinion that is a matter of speculation, but at least his willingness to present source material showed he has invested much time studying and researching the subject he is talking about
Spelling and Grammar - I had no great issue with eithers spelling or grammar as such. But i feel Cons argument was sometimes harder to read "for some reason" and definitely when it came to seperating the subject matter of his opponent, from his own, it was quite difficult to easily recognise who was speaking, himself, or his opponent.
Conduct - I am actually going to give this to Con. I feel i agree with Pros philisophical stance, aswell as his Scholarship, but i do not agree with his religious arguments, and he violated his own policy on a number of occasions, regards to this being a philisophical debate, and not a religious debate, and he walked a very thin-line and this nearly cost him the argument in my estimation, and it is quite apparent that he is eager to tie this in with god, which makes his argument just a tad dishonest. But once weighed up, i feel his philisophical argument was good enough to win over, and reduce his violation to a conduct violation, rather than an argument violation.

>Reason for Mod Action: Allocation of argument points requires more than simply stating that one argument was convincing (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#1-argument-points). Explain why the definition of "good" matters in the debate and why one side defines the term better better. Sources was unjustified because a) not a single citation was evaluated and b) the voter failed to compare sources of each debater (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#2-sources-points). As for S&G, the Voting Policy explicitly states "In order to award spelling and grammar (S&G) points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Give specific examples of S&G errors
Explain how these errors were excessive
Compare each debater's S&G from the debate
S&G errors are considered excessive when they render arguments incoherent or incomprehensible."
Simply stating that you prefer one side for separating the argument to make it easier to read does not constitute excessive S&G errors.
Conduct is explained sufficiently as you did demonstrate that the mutually agreed upon rule was broken.
Please consult the Voting Policy which can be found here: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************

I didnt vote, but np!

-->
@DrSpy

Relative to my last comment here, I want you to know that I thoroughly enjoyed our debate, and beg your forgiveness for the cynic in me. You truly raised some valid points in opposition, and wish you well in your further debates.

-->
@Melcharaz

Thank you for voting. I appreciate your commentary, even that which is in criticism. You raise valid points. I'm afraid one of my faults is a rather thick streak of cynicism, and I especially prefer the negative side of cynicsm that engages the 18th century French penchant to seek the "bon mot." A clear fault, I recognize and just need to be patient with myself as I work to eliminate it. In the end, though, I'm a very happy guy, cynic or nt.

Also, its very briefly touched on here. Evil people can do good. But an evil person cannot do truth. As truth in the scriptures is a spirit that the world cant accept.

According to scripture, yes. Because being perfect isnt being sinless, a good example is Job, a perfect and upright man. He wasnt sinless. Jesus told us to be perfect as God is perfect, matthew 5:44-48 is very clear. And the scriptures have called men good. Psalm 37:23 acts 11:22-24. And barnabas wasnt sinless. The only sinless man was jesus christ.

-->
@fauxlaw
@DrSpy

I gave this an initial read through. Not voting yet, but a couple preliminary comments:

“There are consequences to our actions, and they can be good and bad.” Well said. Terry Pratchett’s book Going Postal opens on similar consideration.

However much of pro's opening was looking at the matter through a religious lense, which given the description could harm conduct. On that, I don't think it actually harmed the arguments, as they were not dependent on religious preference, but rather were using them like an analogy. Related to that, I don't see a problem with the vegan fox analogy (even while if forced it would be a cruel violation of the nature and literally biology of the beast).

I was worried con would just argue a perfect person doesn't exist, but he spent a lot of his time on something little better. Basically a mix of Discourse and Normative Kritiks (https://tiny.cc/Kritik). As much as I could offer a better definition of evil, the pre-agreed definitions of good and evil functioned fine for this debate.

I'm leaning on pro's favor on arguments. However, con put some work into his challenge for if a struggle really occurs. In a few days or so, I'll try to re-read with emphasis on that to determine a winner.

References for round 3:

1 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
2 Attributed to Edmund Burke
3 According to the OED definition of “good,” and the corresponding antithesis of “evil”
4 https://hbr.org/2018/04/7-traits-of-super-productive-people
5 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201308/the-real-meaning-good-and-evil
6 http://www.balanceyoursuccess.com/whats-good-about-goodness/

-->
@Barney

I'm acquainted with Orson, and we share a common understanding of the subject under debate here.

References in round 2 argument:

1 https://www.boredpanda.com/fennec-fox-vegan-diet-animal-abuse-jumanji-sonia-sae/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
2 Holy Bible, Matthew 5: 48
3 Holy Bible, Matthew 5, 6, 7, inclusive.
4 Holy Bible, Exodus 20: 16
5 Book of Mormon, I Nephi 3: 7

This debate topic reminds me of one of the Ender novels by Orson Scott Card, when the near-sociopath Peter Wiggin struggles against his nature.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#GooBetBad

References for round 1:

1 https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/, McCloskey, H.J. 1960, “God and Evil” Philosophical Quarterly 10: 97-114
2 Suzy Platt (1993). Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. Barnes & Noble. p. 123. ISBN 9780880297684.
3 Holy Bible, Genesis 2: 16, 17
4 https://medium.com/the-hum/the-science-of-decision-making-5-ways-to-make-the-right-decision-every-time-cbd85306ef6d
5 https://books.google.com/books?id=3cUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA515&lpg=PA515&dq=does+perfection+imply+that+one+is+not+tempted&source=bl&ots=kAr19CdrIp&sig=ACfU3U2j7Cn_VrnWPGg3jQUcyvmSZi5vfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLiej7u6LoAhVO7J4KHVBSC40Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=does%20perfection%20imply%20that%20one%20is%20not%20tempted&f=false

I have erred even at the outset, proving the point that perfection is, indeed, a mountain, not a mole hill. Please read the title of the debate as "Does a good, perfect person [not just a man] struggle with evil."