P2 is completely self-defeating. If one person sees it as evil, it therefore is evil to that person and if one person sees it as completely evil, it is then completely evil in the eyes of that person. Thus, P2 already annihilates Pro's case since Pro is saying someone seeing something as good makes it good (this backfires as stated).
We are debating is something can be completely evil not whether something actually is that.
The disctinction is important when handling Pro's P1.
Pro's P1 seems to suggest that if anything accidentally benefits someone in some shape or form (so even complete annihilation of Earth benefits the suicidal in a superficial way) that an act can then not be completely evil.
I am going to explain to you some situations where there is complete evil.
One thing that could be argued to be complete evil is female genital mutilation. It only robs the women of pleasure and traumatises them as they are betrayed by those meant to protect and nurture them (it's done to them as young or teenage girls and the parents blackmail them to go along with it if they resist).
In this scenario nothing and nobody benefits in a true sense but even if we say that somehow it 'could be good' what Pro is missing is this:
Accidental benefits in one context to some individual or thing does not mean the act was not evil.
If we follow Pro's logic, then every single helpful act that has even one slight iota of accidental harm or detriment cause, is renders 'not truly good'. This is quite absurd and makes me wonder how Pro is definine 'evil'.
Something can be completely evil to either an individual, a group or even as an overarching concept (such destroying the environment or engaging in smoking around non-smokers blackmailing them into second hand smoke in a situation if they can't walk away or avoid directly breathing it in).
If this 'somehow' magically had a benefit (perhaps to the evildoer) I maybe can see Pro's angle even though this wasn't what Pro meant.
Nonetheless, something like suicide bombing or any situation where there's pain and agony and nobody really ends up happy and painless can surely be called net-evil situations.
Let's take the example of an unhappy spouse cheating with someone that's shit at sex and also emotionally unintelligent just to hope that eventually his/her partner finds out and breaks up with him/her as they themselves were too afraid to do so.
This surely benefitted nobody in the end (as in the act of the cheating itself) even if the breakup ends up being triggered. What I am getting at is you get people so irrational they will hurt others just to spite themselves, often vengeance (as in pure retributive vengeance not deterrant or 'stopping and evildoer from doing more') qualify as this.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pevensie // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con
Although I personally agree with the Pro position, I found Pro's arguments extremely weak and believe Con won debate.
The weakest argument I believe Pro made is the following: "if it at least is seen as something good by even one person then it cannot be inherently evil because they saw it as good it benefited them." Pro degrades evil to subjective opinion. It is theoretically possible, however unlikely, that every human agrees something is evil. Finally, suggesting that if at least one person benefits from evil means it is not inherently evil is absurdly consequentialist.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter does not sufficiently explain his reasoning. While the voter is welcome to provide some insights into how he perceives certain arguments within the debate, the voter should not award points to either side on the basis of points the voter himself is making. Decisions must be based on points made within the debate. Also, the voter must assess arguments made by both sides in the debate. The voter only assesses a single point made by Pro, and does not establish that Con had better arguments.
**************************************************
You may enjoy this simple unrated debate.
I tried to keep it as concise as possible.
Your votes would be appreciated.
Oh ok thanks
https://www.debateart.com/members/AmericanPatriot/qualifications
How do you post a new topic on the forum?