Most Humans Are "Evil"
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
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".
full forfeit
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.
Con put up a stalwart defence, but unfortunately I just feel like pro was a little more invested in the debate.
Pro showed up.
He is true
I'd take this debate.
I guess we’ll have to see
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.
Define Evil and most
Most humans are not good either.
This is so easy. Anyone could win as Con.
Can you be more specific about what "absurdity" means?
The Bible doesn't say or teach most are evil.
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."
I would take this if wasn't required to argue most are good. My position would be neutral which is correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVd_uug_u40
This is confirmed by the Bible. Most humans are evil.
If you make it Rated, I'll accept.