Instigator / Pro

1644

rating

debates

65.63%

won

Topic

#4330

Most Humans Are "Evil"

Status

Finished

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

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 03.27.2023 05:09PM
Last updated date: 06.17.2023 06:03PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Two weeks
Max argument characters: 8,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

TigerLake

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

Full resolution: On balance, most Human beings can be said to be an immoral agent, or unable to meet a "moral" standard. We will debate what is moral and immoral, and if the Human Being can be said to be Immoral in most cases.

Con must argue that most human beings are "Good", and establish some standard for being "good".

Round 1

Undefeatable

04.01.2023 12:25PM

Pro

My argument is simple yet tricky to disprove. According to research, even 2021 which had the highest number of people giving to charity only saw 40% people give to charity. Based on this statistics, if we have a moral obligation to give to charity, then most people would be “evil” based on this standard for selfishness and moral.

Thus I would like to prove there is a moral obligation to help those living in severe poverty, but as the link above shows most people are too selfish to fulfill this obligation. It is self evident to assert that things like poverty, famine and disease cause suffering and problems for people. Under most circumstances, for sake of survival, there is no person who would want to suffer under this poverty and lack of resources. Humans naturally go for survival and desire to avoid such things, and many countries even strive to improve conditions to prove free education and even housing some times.

Therefore, unless con can prove otherwise, the natural desires to avoid suffering should apply to the regular persons. Then, let us move onto our moral obligation to help. It takes remarkably little effort to raise someone out of poverty — the Wikipedia article says that Poverty is $35/day, while some first world country like US would have minimum wage of $15/hour in some locations, thus a mere two hours of work to raise someone out of poverty. To compare it to the suffering situation. Imagine a child was drowning and it only took you two hours of work to save his life. When those in poverty and starving, would this not be very similar to our situation here? Yet, most people would not give to charity to raise the people out of the situation.

There are some objections with the idea that other people are helping so you might not need to help. But that assumes that the other people are rescuing all those in poverty. The problem is still ongoing and there seems to always be someone who is needlessly suffering or even dying.

TigerLake

04.15.2023 12:25PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 2

Undefeatable

04.15.2023 03:05PM

Pro

extend

TigerLake

04.29.2023 03:05PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 3

Undefeatable

05.04.2023 06:03PM

Pro

Unfortunate.

TigerLake

05.18.2023 06:03PM

Con

Forfeited

bigdiknazi

06.17.2023 03:25PM

#14

He is true

Nyxified

05.18.2023 10:53PM

#13

-->

@Undefeatable

I'd take this debate.

Undefeatable

04.01.2023 12:11PM

#12

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

I guess we’ll have to see

Athias

03.29.2023 02:36PM

#11

-->

@Undefeatable

The notion that one can observe and inform on the moral values of "most humans." And this would necessitate a majority since you are arguing "most." Even if you reference a study or studies, there's no sample size that can accurately represent 7.9 billion people, about four billion of which you'd have to prove are "evil." If by "on balance" you intend to shrink the scope of your analysis and affirmation, then your conclusions will be severely degraded since they will likely rely on unsubstantiated ecological inferences.

TigerLake

03.28.2023 05:59PM

#10

Define Evil and most

Mall

03.28.2023 03:56PM

Most humans are not good either.

Sir.Lancelot

03.28.2023 02:47PM

This is so easy. Anyone could win as Con.

Undefeatable

03.28.2023 01:37PM

-->

@Athias

Can you be more specific about what "absurdity" means?

Mall

03.28.2023 01:12PM

The Bible doesn't say or teach most are evil.

Athias

03.27.2023 07:44PM

-->

@Undefeatable

I would've accepted if the time allotted for submitting one's argument was fewer than two weeks, and the scope of the argument's resolution didn't allow for absurdity. There's no way either side will be able to substantiate either conclusion, even if it's "on balance."

Mall

03.27.2023 07:29PM

I would take this if wasn't required to argue most are good. My position would be neutral which is correct.

Savant

03.27.2023 05:30PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVd_uug_u40

Best.Korea

03.27.2023 05:19PM

This is confirmed by the Bible. Most humans are evil.

Sir.Lancelot

03.27.2023 05:16PM

-->

@Undefeatable

If you make it Rated, I'll accept.

oromagi

06.15.2023 08:17PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

full forfeit

Lemming

05.30.2023 04:55PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Arguably people can help in other ways that are not recorded,

Statistics can be mistaken, or refer to 'particular time or place,

Arguably there are examples of people who help when there is an accident,
Thus some people may be good, but not 'saints,

Taxes go towards helping people,

What about neutral people.

Still, only Undefeatable made any arguments,
And their arguments 'did have sense to them,
Set an idea of what type of action is good,
Criticized people not taking so called minimum 'good action.

Nyxified

05.18.2023 10:54PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con put up a stalwart defence, but unfortunately I just feel like pro was a little more invested in the debate.

Savant

05.18.2023 10:06PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro showed up.