Instigator / Pro
0
1479
rating
318
debates
39.31%
won
Topic
#3793

Evil does exist.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
28,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1700
rating
544
debates
68.01%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions or comments, please send a message, drop a comment.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Evil does exist.

Evil known as immorality or the wrongness of people behavior happens quite a bit .

Turn on the news, the slaying of folks ruthlessly on the streets, in their homes.

Mass shootings and I've seen things online about individuals who were held captive, assaulted , mutilated and destroyed .

So you know with this standpoint, may not be all that controversial as I thought. Just sharing current events calling them for what they are.
Con
#2
With 28k characters, we may as well attack the short case of Pro outright.

Evil does exist.
Say that evil exists is not an argument, it is stating the title of the debate which we are resolving. This has zero bearing on the outcome.
Evil known as immorality or the wrongness of people behavior happens quite a bit.
No, it does not. What happens is we identify what has happened as 'evil' in our opinion and subjective take on the matter. The debate in fact says 'evil does exist' meaning we are discussing the general noun of 'evil' and not the adjective for actions.

Turn on the news, the slaying of folks ruthlessly on the streets, in their homes.
Pro does not provide us News articles, furthermore is the total lack of framework for calling the News evil.

Mass shootings and I've seen things online about individuals who were held captive, assaulted , mutilated and destroyed .
I deny that they are proof that evil exists, they are proof that violence exists and that there are acts we deem the adjective 'evil', 'barbaric' or 'violent'.
So you know with this standpoint, may not be all that controversial as I thought. Just sharing current events calling them for what they are.
The events were not shared, they were not called what they were because 'evil' in the title of this debate is a noun and not an adjective.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Establishing Framework of Evil's Existence and Differentiating Noun from Adjective

I will like to provide the definitions since neither the description gives them, nor Pro's Round 1.

Defining Existence
To begin with, let's establish what it means to 'exist' at all before exploring what we are claiming does exist:

to be, or to be real

to have real being whether material or spiritual

Of course, it is then necessary to define 'real'.
a
having objective independent existence
b
not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory GENUINE

It is the stance of Con that Pro must prove that evil has objective independent existence, as opposed to being fraudulent or illusory.

Con has a core stance of solipsism but concedes nihilism as a viable alternative and will be expanding on that in the following Rounds.

Defining 'evil', the noun

1. UNCOUNTABLE NOUN 
Evil is a powerful force that some people believe to exist, and which causes wicked and bad things to happen.

2. UNCOUNTABLE NOUN 
Evil is used to refer to all the wicked and bad things that happen in the world.

1
a
the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b
a cosmic evil force
2
something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

It is clear that Pro wishes to use the definition of things that bring calamity, sorrow, distress and such. What I would like to explore is that we don't know anything exists outside of ourselves.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Solipsism vs Nihilism and the implausibility of anything, including 'evil' having objective indepentence existence.

The argument in favor of solipsism:
  • The only thing one has direct access to is the contents of one's own mind (one's mental states). What one knows most certainly are one's mental states – one's thoughts, experiences, emotions, and so on.
  • Just because one sees an object does not mean that the object exists. One could be dreaming or hallucinating. There is no direct conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical.
  • The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person. The contents of one's mind are the only things one has direct access to. One cannot get ‘outside’ of one's mind to encounter any other objects including other persons. Other minds are even more removed.
The basic form of the argument:
  • Person's mental states are the only things they have access to.
  • One cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of their mental states.
    • Therefore, only their mental states exist.

Let's expand on this, to prove I understand it and am not just copy-pasting lazily.

Solipsism can be formed as a syllogism.

Premise 1 (P1): The only thing a person truly has definite access to is their mind's current state of interpreting whatever it is they believe is being interpreted throughout their supposed life.

Premise 2(P2): No individual can conclusively and objectively prove that anything exists outside of what their mental state provides them.

Conclusion (P1 + P2): Only the mental state can be claimed and objectively known to exist.

I guess I just made the cookie-cutter wording of the syllogism that I can use in my debates here.

As for this situation, I argue that evil only 'exists' if anything outside of one's own mind exists and yes I am speaking to you, reader/voter. Do you exist? All you know is that your mind does.

Conceding Nihilism as a Plausible Alternative

I wish to concede that the following is plausible:
Nihilism is a philosophy that rejects values and the valuation society places on people, objects, and life, and instead states that everything is meaningless.

Cosmic Nihilism (Cosmic Pessimism)
Cosmic nihilism is seen as the more hyper-rational branch of thought, which states that there is no meaning for the truth to be found in the universe.8

It takes this one step further by also saying that any meaning created by human beings — such as love, family, freedom, and joy — is a fiction used as a coping strategy while we wait to die. Due to this, it is usually referenced as the next step after atheism.

In other words, it is possible that even the self doesn't exist, maybe our own mind is just part of a greater illusion reality is playing upon itself. Perhaps the limitations of english language and human-brain-structure logical pathing doesn't let us comprehend the chaotic 'real reality' that is there and our pattern recognition is at play.

'We' (if we all exist) may deem things to be the adjective 'evil' but do we know it exists? Not in the slightest, all we know is our perception.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"What happens is we identify what has happened as 'evil' in our opinion and subjective take on the matter. The debate in fact says 'evil does exist' meaning we are discussing the general noun of 'evil' and not the adjective for actions."

When we identify anything, we use terms.
Is that correct?

What are we identifying?

What am I identifying?

There are things that happen and we give a name for it .

Do we want to argue semantics or reality?

Arguing reality if you want to go there, that task would be to prove what happens to people everyday really doesn't happen.

When you say "noun", that means "a thing", does it not?

A thing is something that exists. What is something that exist?

Well something like murder. Murder is a thing, is it not?

Is it my opinion or preference to call it evil?

I'm not trying to argue opinions and preferences. I'm certainly not trying to argue semantics because whatever we decide to call it, does that "it" exist?

Is "it" real? Is "it" a noun?

It is a thing most definitely.

"Pro does not provide us News articles, furthermore is the total lack of framework for calling the News evil."

Oh so you don't believe people murder people. You don't believe crime exist .

You're saying you believe it if I tell you to turn on a t.v. or Google search recent news or today's news.

Why do I have to tell you to read the news?

This is something you should be able to do yourself.

It's like saying the sun is in the sky. But I didn't provide a photo of it. You can use your own eyes to see it .

"I deny that they are proof that evil exists, they are proof that violence exists and that there are acts we deem the adjective 'evil', 'barbaric' or 'violent'."

Yes this is semantical. You call it violence, I call it evil. Now just earlier you were crying about a source of proof that these things exist, now you are saying there is proof of these things.

You're going back and forth and arguing about calling it this versus that.

I mean do you want me to argue why to use a particular word?

Ok, do you have a problem calling what you call violence, calling it also wrong?

"there are acts we deem the adjective 'evil', 'barbaric' or 'violent'." "

So evil does exist. The term exists and the act for it or to describe it exists. However you call or wish to describe it,
still exists, doesn't it?

No splitting hairs.

"The events were not shared, they were not called what they were because 'evil' in the title of this debate is a noun and not an adjective."

When I say "share" , I mean communicate with you. Relax the nitpicking.

Now you go into this matter of us existing or where is the proof that anything exists .

I guess because we both agree that evil exists, now you want to move the goal post to everything existing or not.

If nothing exist, that would include evil but you're wavering .

You want to change the topic to reality existing or not.

Ok how do we know anything exists aside from what our senses communicate?

We don't unless we have a sixth sense or third eye.

We know things via the senses.

We know this thing exists or know a thing described as a thing is a thing as a thing exists according to the senses.

Evil that is.



Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
I rest my case.
Con
#6
What happens is we identify what has happened as 'evil' in our opinion and subjective take on the matter. The debate in fact says 'evil does exist' meaning we are discussing the general noun of 'evil' and not the adjective for actions.

When we identify anything, we use terms.
Is that correct?
Somewhat correct yes, we also use other things like definitions, feature-descriptions etc.
What am I identifying?
In this case you are identifying that a noun 'evil' exists as a real thing.
What are we identifying?
'we' and 'I' seem to be asking the same question but I, as Con am not identifying it as existing.
There are things that happen and we give a name for it .
Things happening is an assumption that an individual develops to remain sane in this potentially simulated reality.
Do we want to argue semantics or reality?
Without semantics, reality cannot be understood.

Arguing reality if you want to go there, that task would be to prove what happens to people everyday really doesn't happen.
Not exactly, I provided a syllogism that explains that what is ultimately unprovable is you to prove it really does happen. Instead, I am saying that it is plausible that the reader of this debate's mind is the only real thing.

When you say "noun", that means "a thing", does it not?
In the language of English that the reader of this debate is to understand, noun means:


any member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners (see DETERMINER sense b) to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept

A thing is something that exists. What is something that exist?
The problem here is that 'existence' is a coherence-crutch. To make sense of the world presented to the individual, the individual has come to terms with the fact that they have to assume things which appear to exist do exist.

Evil doesn't exist outside of one's mind even more so than the physical objects which may be an illusion. The acts that are evil are assumed to 'exist' but as I say in round 1:
Premise 1 (P1): The only thing a person truly has definite access to is their mind's current state of interpreting whatever it is they believe is being interpreted throughout their supposed life.

Premise 2(P2): No individual can conclusively and objectively prove that anything exists outside of what their mental state provides them.

Conclusion (P1 + P2): Only the mental state can be claimed and objectively known to exist.

Well something like murder. Murder is a thing, is it not?
Not necessarily, this debate can be an imagined or simulated scenario for the reader. So can the murders one is told occurred.

Is it my opinion or preference to call it evil?
Both. However, I am not challenging the individual's interpretation, I am actually challenging that the events they deemed 'evil' may not exist at all. In other words, 'evil' could exist but doesn't exist because nothing definitely exists other than the individual's mind (and even then it may not be quite how they are experiencing it, hence Cosmological Nihilism).

I'm not trying to argue opinions and preferences. I'm certainly not trying to argue semantics because whatever we decide to call it, does that "it" exist?
No, I am saying nothing exists other than the reader's mind and that even that is contentious as it may not be quite what they think.

Is "it" real? Is "it" a noun?
The word 'it' is a noun inside of the language that the reader has come to understand.

It is a thing most definitely.
Well, 'things' are held to the same skepticism as 'evil' in my arguments.

Pro does not provide us News articles, furthermore is the total lack of framework for calling the News evil.
Oh so you don't believe people murder people. You don't believe crime exist .
I think that a debate was created here that you (if you are real) saw as a truism. Instead, the debate has a problem and room for doubt as we do not definitely know that everything exists, which would include all that is evil or the recipient/victim of evil.

You're saying you believe it if I tell you to turn on a t.v. or Google search recent news or today's news.
I don't understand what this statement is about.

Why do I have to tell you to read the news?
The News is real within the assumption and coherence-crutch that what seems real is real. I am saying think further/deeper.

It's like saying the sun is in the sky. But I didn't provide a photo of it. You can use your own eyes to see it .
However, unlike that, 'evil' can't be seen, it is interpreted and concluded. On top of that, the sun may be part of the simulation AKA pseudo-reality AKA dream.

I deny that they are proof that evil exists, they are proof that violence exists and that there are acts we deem the adjective 'evil', 'barbaric' or 'violent'.
Yes this is semantical. You call it violence, I call it evil. Now just earlier you were crying about a source of proof that these things exist, now you are saying there is proof of these things.
No, I did not say there was proof. We are in a very philosophical debate, that is given when discussing the existence of evil. I am entitled to push hard on truths that are typically assumed, that is within the scope of the debate.

Round 4
Pro
#7
"Somewhat correct yes, we also use other things like definitions, feature-descriptions etc."

Yes terms are in those things you listed. We use terms, ok we're on the same page.

"In this case you are identifying that a noun 'evil' exists as a real thing."

I identified a real thing that are the mass shootings which you call violent. There's no dispute there. You're finicky with how it is to be called, nevertheless it is real.

"Things happening is an assumption that an individual develops to remain sane in this potentially simulated reality."

My head is in my hand. You know what I'm saying is true so your tactic now is to play reality as being false altogether.

Don't go there.

"Without semantics, reality cannot be understood."

So we are in reality,  is that right?

So it exists with evil from the evildoers.

I'm not saying to be without semantics. I asked do you want to argue over them?

"Not exactly, I provided a syllogism that explains that what is ultimately unprovable is you to prove it really does happen. Instead, I am saying that it is plausible that the reader of this debate's mind is the only real thing."

Red herring.

"In the language of English that the reader of this debate is to understand, noun means:"


Stop right there . Is a noun a thing?

"Evil doesn't exist outside of one's mind even more so than the physical objects which may be an illusion. "

So evil doesn't exist but physical objects may be real or an illusion outside the mind.

Is that what you are claiming?

"Not necessarily, this debate can be an imagined or simulated scenario for the reader. So can the murders one is told occurred."

It can be , then maybe it can't be. So without your proof to say absolutely, this is a moot point, throw it out.

No straddling the fence here.

"Both. However, I am not challenging the individual's interpretation, "

Very good so like I said, let us not argue the semantics we prefer to use from our views .

"I am actually challenging that the events they deemed 'evil' may not exist at all. In other words, 'evil' could exist but doesn't exist because nothing definitely exists other than the individual's mind (and even then it may not be quite how they are experiencing it, hence Cosmological Nihilism)."

Well your challenge is futile. You indicated so yourself that this reality could be false . So then it could be not.

It's not the same as stating it is outright.

"No, I am saying nothing exists other than the reader's mind and that even that is contentious as it may not be quite what they think."

Are you calling yourself nothing?

It's because that's what you are , is that right, you are no thing?

You are an illusion, simulation.

"The word 'it' is a noun inside of the language that the reader has come to understand."

You are the reader. Do you understand "it" as a (noun) thing ?

"Well, 'things' are held to the same skepticism as 'evil' in my arguments."

But your points appear to waver. First you argue that I have to argue that evil is a noun versus an adjective.

Whichever way , a thing is a thing. Describing something is a thing or at least a thing to do.

This is when I guess you give up on that point you broached, now you want to debate on reality itself.

No leg to stand on there either on your side.

"I think that a debate was created here that you (if you are real) saw as a truism. Instead, the debate has a problem and room for doubt as we do not definitely know that everything exists, which would include all that is evil or the recipient/victim of evil. "

Do you believe people murder people? Do you believe crime exist ?

"I don't understand what this statement is about."

Do you get news feed on any of your media mediums, for instance the internet?

"The News is real within the assumption and coherence-crutch that what seems real is real. I am saying think further/deeper."

I'm saying there's your source right there.

"However, unlike that, 'evil' can't be seen, it is interpreted and concluded. "

It is interpreted and concluded from something that is. Like the sun, it has been interpreted and concluded for what it is.

"On top of that, the sun may be part of the simulation AKA pseudo-reality AKA dream."

Again, throw these "maybe" points out. You either prove something is false or acknowledge that it could be real. If it could be real, it doesn't help you, just leans towards me.

"No, I did not say there was proof. "

This is quoted word for word from you.

"they are proof that violence exists"

Don't call your own self a liar.

"No, I did not say there was proof. "

You're calling something as being proof.

You're just calling it another name.

"they are proof that violence exists"

"they are proof "

""they are proof ""

"they are proof "

"No, I did not say there was proof. "

You did.

"they are proof that violence exists"

This is what is most likely why you are entering this whole questioning of reality thing .

I infiltrated your position that was just going into a semantic tactic so then you put out the ad hoc argument of "well maybe this isn't really a reality altogether".

Then, trying to slide it by without being in error about making an assertion throwing in the "maybe".

"We are in a very philosophical debate, that is given when discussing the existence of evil. I am entitled to push hard on truths that are typically assumed, that is within the scope of the debate."

I wonder would it be philosophical if I would of used the term violence.

I could see you just nitpicking up another term and to argue against any one chosen as a preference .

But remember, we not arguing preferences or challenging them per se.

Also what hard truth(s)?

Certainly not about reality being false, you know that.
Albeit, you did make an absolute matter of fact like statement as to no, nothing exists. Then you straddle a bit, backpedaling with "except for this one thing" jazz.





.

Con
#8
My head is in my hand. You know what I'm saying is true so your tactic now is to play reality as being false altogether.

Don't go there.
I am going there. Handle it.
Round 5
Pro
#9
I'll conclude with this just to bring it full circle.

You started an initial counter argument attempt trying to argue semantic interpretation selection.

You came later to acknowledge that really you had no business in challenging that .

You start with an initial perspective that there is proof of these things. For instance, mass shootings. Contextualizing it to be real but calling it violence and that this thing doesn't exist as evil so therefore evil doesn't exist.

A thing is a noun and the term evil is technically something else and all like that. It doesn't fit in the noun category so it can't exist as a noun. 

Then I come back pointing out that the term exists regardless and to be finicky over the proper category is futile. 

You acknowledge that the term exists but in a different category which has no bearing on my case.

You acknowledge the proof of these things I call evil and you call violent.

"they are proof that violence exists and that there are acts we deem the adjective 'evil', 'barbaric' or 'violent'."

So by that going in a circle, your counter took you no place .

During the progression of this exchange, you conjure up a new counterpoint to retract your initial statement about proof saying it possibly may be a lie.

"Not necessarily, this debate can be an imagined or simulated scenario for the reader. So can the murders one is told occurred."

Now points about what can be are not definite. Evidence is definite in the positive with no question to the negative.

You say it could be false , I can say it could not be false.

What do we have left?

Just a speculative dialogue in which what point would it serve in a rebuttal to stand on facts?

None. We're dealing with what is actually true and false, not the possibilities of each.

I can tell this was an ad hoc pitch. It wasn't thought out to really serve a point.

Good debate comrade, a good one.
Con
#10
Forfeited