Instigator / Pro
1
1389
rating
424
debates
45.05%
won
Topic
#5779
In this reality, no such thing as good or bad people .
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1596
rating
32
debates
73.44%
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.
Send a message for questions on the topic.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you the opposing side. Thank you to I suppose any readers that may or may not see this.
In this reality as we know it, on this planet earth, there are people referred to as human beings.
Now there is this author that I often refer to and what he said may have some weight into the presentation of my stance.
He, Mr. Neely Fuller Jr., author of what is referred to as the code book. It's a lengthy title so in short, just refer to it as the code book.
He says in the system of "racism" which many won't argue is the reality we're in, there are no persons that are humane. That's what it means to be a human being. So therefore, no human beings exists.
Now this lines up to my saying there are no good people on earth. On this earth as we know it. Not talking any where else or any new earth to come where things might be different.
But as it is right now, there are no good people. No such person as a good person. You know how you say "this is a good car" or "good tv".
Why is that t.v. good? It inherently does what it is supposed to that is to function as a television.
Since we're talking about function. I say I have good hearing. My hearing functions as it ought to which is my audible sense.
My hearing is good so therefore it can't be bad. That is the opposite of good. Bad can't come out of good and neither vice versa.
The nature of good is only that which breeds good.
Do we get the meaning of what I'm saying?
I know definitions are a thing. I'm using practical illustrations to explain the meaning.
The nature of fire will not get you wet. I was thinking about this illustration I think on the slavery/freedom debate.
Which those are inherently neutral. I digress before I stir up that can of worms.
You can't get the trait of wetness out of fire. Not in its nature. You can't get what's not good out of a good person.
"People make or do good." Now how can a person make or create something not within them?
How can the person create something that's already here in reality?
The person can't. I don't know if the opposing side agrees a child being born is good for the sake of existing humanity. The sexual reproduction of offspring, that's good .
Do you know the person, the progenitor, did not create that offspring?
This is why I don't care to use the term "procreation". I witness this word used quite often and its assimilation or concoction is erroneous.
People don't create anything. They arrange and assemble what's already here.
Now there's a couple of ways to look at this .
To create something, that thing has not existed before. So you can say this arrangement wasn't here before.
But then again it was. Everything that has been created has been arranged. We just come along and rearrange.
You can say the rearrangement wasn't there until you made it .
But then again, it was or else you wouldn't be able to do it without the laws of metaphysics and organic and biological matter working with other matter that was also not created by you.
Every arrangement you come up with is already present in existence allowed by nature or the laws of nature.
You discover is what you do. Men have discovered land right. They didn't create it or invent. That brings me to discuss about inventing which is introducing an idea of discovery as well arranging things together.
We tap into reality and in return it shows us what it amounts to. Any good that's there will amount. We find. We tap into that, receive that.
We find water, we find vegetation, crops and we receive all this that is good. Why is it good?
It sustains us in our functioning as living organic beings .
Just like that t.v. amounts to what is good as it functions being what it is doing what it does.
We find what we tap into this reality that is good for us and of course the opposite is discovered. Oh that's terrible.
You mean we find our own demise as well.
You may remember the expression "don't go looking for trouble".
I remember from this prison movie, the main character was told to stay out of trouble.
The main character said " Do you see where I'm at? All I gotta do is stand still and trouble will find me."
Who's locked up in prison ? Those you refer to as bad people.
These are people that have succeeded in finding the bad elements bringing to others, introducing them into the lives of others .
The universe is about cause and effect. Also what Neely Fuller said, the logic that came with the universe. Fire will burn , water is wet.
These people found what fire will do and what did these people become?
Convicted arsonists.
This is destructive, harmful and deleterious on folks that are undeserving.
How can a person you say is a bad person did something good?
It's like a bad appliance or some electronic gadget that fails to deliver. It's no good. It has no good in it.
A light , a bright light casts no darkness as in the light there's no darkness.
I'll leave it here for you the opposing side to get in your questions.
Thanks.
Con
#2
For this debate, I'm going to go with a pretty simple definition for "good person". Someone who puts more joy than suffering into the world , by their intentional actions, in their lifetime seems pretty encompassing for our purposes here, but I reserve the right to change that. This definition may be a little different than what I think my opponent is go for, but I'll use it for the purposes of my opening, seeing as this is a debate that works better when there aren't any set definitions anyways.
My argument should be pretty clear. With 8 billion people on the planet, and much more dead, someone who had a net positive seems pretty easy to find. But I don't even need to do that. As long as people have committed any actions that were "good" or "bad", then there have been good and bad people, unless somehow everyone's actions are all equal and negate each other resulting in a total of 0, but that feels almost impossible.
Now, I haven't read my opponents opening statement yet, but my guess is that they will argue that no people can be "good" or "bad" because those are traits that cannot apply to a person. However, I disagree, as I believe the morality of a person comes in retrospect, and thus a person can be judged as "good" or "bad" when looking back on their life, even if that has not effect on their possible future actions. To give a comparison, you have "lucky" as a trait, because a coin flip is 50-50 no matter who flips it. However, if you flipped it on heads 100 times, you can look back on that and say that you were "lucky", even if that doesn't mean you are "lucky" going forward.
With that, I'll move on to rebuttals.
Why is that t.v. good? It inherently does what it is supposed to that is to function as a television.Since we're talking about function. I say I have good hearing. My hearing functions as it ought to which is my audible sense.My hearing is good so therefore it can't be bad. That is the opposite of good. Bad can't come out of good and neither vice versa.The nature of good is only that which breeds good.
Well if that is truly the nature of good, then if a human being breeds good, could they not be a "good" human being? I was interpreting the words "good" and "bad" to be moral terms, meaning if that person has made happiness, and not caused sadness, but the way you use it, it's more of an Aristotelian use of the word where is mean that the thing is achieving its purpose.
You can't get the trait of wetness out of fire. Not in its nature. You can't get what's not good out of a good person.
Well I disagree. A person doesn't have to be a saint to be good, they can still do bad, but if on-balance they do more good than bad, I would at least consider them a good person. I'm also starting to realize that this is going to be less of a debate and more of a Socratic Seminar type thing, but that sounds more fun, so I'll adjust my style to fit that better.
How can the person create something that's already here in reality?
Good can still be made, even if it isn't original. I can write down a word-to-word recreation of Hamlet and even though I didn't create it, it still exists, no? I'm just recreating it.
Every arrangement you come up with is already present in existence allowed by nature or the laws of nature.You discover is what you do. Men have discovered land right. They didn't create it or invent. That brings me to discuss about inventing which is introducing an idea of discovery as well arranging things together.
Okay fine, you are discovering good but that still means you are actively doing it, and thus being a good person. You don't have to be the first to climb mount everest to have done it, nor do you have to be the first to do anything for that achievement to exist. If you did it, then you did it. If you do more good than bad, you are a "good person".
You may remember the expression "don't go looking for trouble".I remember from this prison movie, the main character was told to stay out of trouble.The main character said " Do you see where I'm at? All I gotta do is stand still and trouble will find me."Who's locked up in prison ? Those you refer to as bad people.These are people that have succeeded in finding the bad elements bringing to others, introducing them into the lives of others .
From a strictly consequentialist view of things, it doesn't matter whether the person was in an easy position to do good or not, they are what they are. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not, a person who does more good than bad is "good", and it's same the other way. It doesn't matter if that person is prone to badness, or badness "finds them", or they grew up in a world with so much bad that it's hard for them to do good, they are just good or bad.
How can a person you say is a bad person did something good?It's like a bad appliance or some electronic gadget that fails to deliver. It's no good. It has no good in it.
Well imagine you have a really good laptop that works all the time, and you really like it. One day, the laptop has a minor problem downloading something, but it gets it eventually. The laptop is generally good, it was just bad at that one thing, once. So it is with humans. Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. It's all about the overall calculation of it. Objects are not constantly good or bad like you claim, and people can be good despite having some bad, and vice versa.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"seeing as this is a debate that works better when there aren't any set definitions anyways."
I believe I clearly explained everything I meant. I smell a moving the goalpost fallacy coming. No matter how well I explain what I mean because that's all definitions are, the explanations of what things mean, to try to refute, you twist it up .
Alright let's go.
"Well if that is truly the nature of good, then if a human being breeds good, could they not be a "good" human being?"
Sure. The issue comes in when the person as the world will say does something bad. How does something good in nature produce bad when bad is not in a good nature?
Do you follow?
"I was interpreting the words "good" and "bad" to be moral terms, meaning if that person has made happiness, and not caused sadness, but the way you use it, it's more of an Aristotelian use of the word where is mean that the thing is achieving its purpose."
This is relative and subjective. This is according to you. According to somebody else it can be different which gets arbitrary.
We're talking about good and bad as a nature. The actual essence of one being separate from another. One can't be found with another.
For instance, the nature of light does not emit dark and vice versa.
So in terms of people, a so called good person can not emit bad. In religious terms, it's the same way. No darkness in the light.
"Well I disagree. A person doesn't have to be a saint to be good, they can still do bad, but if on-balance they do more good than bad, I would at least consider them a good person. I'm also starting to realize that this is going to be less of a debate and more of a Socratic Seminar type thing, but that sounds more fun, so I'll adjust my style to fit that better. "
Can light emit darkness?
"Good can still be made, even if it isn't original. I can write down a word-to-word recreation of Hamlet and even though I didn't create it, it still exists, no? I'm just recreating it. "
Right , you didn't create it. You discovered it and it was given to you to rearrange or stylize . But that's correct, you didn't create it . Nobody has created anything including good.
"Okay fine, you are discovering good but that still means you are actively doing it, and thus being a good person. "
A person doing good. Not a good person. No good exists in you. Remember the good is already there outside of you as it is not within you.
"You don't have to be the first to climb mount everest to have done it, nor do you have to be the first to do anything for that achievement to exist. If you did it, then you did it. If you do more good than bad, you are a "good person". "
For the sake of the topic, when we talk about good as a nature as I already set the goalpost there in the first round, can light emit darkness?
"a person who does more good than bad is "good", and it's same the other way. It doesn't matter if that person is prone to badness, or badness "finds them", or they grew up in a world with so much bad that it's hard for them to do good, they are just good or bad."
Can light emit darkness?
"Well imagine you have a really good laptop that works all the time, and you really like it. One day, the laptop has a minor problem downloading something, but it gets it eventually. The laptop is generally good, it was just bad at that one thing, once. So it is with humans. Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. It's all about the overall calculation of it. Objects are not constantly good or bad like you claim, and people can be good despite having some bad, and vice versa."
The item either fails to deliver or succeeds. It lives up to its function so therefore it is good.
I continue to ask the question about the light as it drives home about the nature which I think you'll agree with.
Con
#4
Sure. The issue comes in when the person as the world will say does something bad. How does something good in nature produce bad when bad is not in a good nature?
Here’s the way I see it. You have examples of physical things being good or bad, such as a TV. If the TV is truly good in nature, then it will fulfill its function well and it won’t have trouble doing so, like lagging. Well let’s say the TV is very good for a while, and then once it doesn’t turn on. After that incident, it goes back to being a very good TV.
The TV is still good, even though bad came out of it. Nothing can ever produce all good or all bad, so the true measure of “goodness” is how much it produces relative to how much bad it produces.
This is relative and subjective. This is according to you. According to somebody else it can be different which gets arbitrary.We're talking about good and bad as a nature. The actual essence of one being separate from another. One can't be found with another.For instance, the nature of light does not emit dark and vice versa.So in terms of people, a so called good person can not emit bad. In religious terms, it's the same way. No darkness in the light.
Okay, I think I finally get this point. I would tie this back to my metaphor about luck to explain why I think this is wrong.
Obviously, you can’t have “luck” as a trait, a coin flip is 50/50 no matter who’s flipping it. However if you flip 10 heads in a row, you can look back on that experience and call it “lucky”.
I’ve been arguing that people can be deemed as “good/bad” when looking back in retrospect, and you’ve been arguing that good and bad are traits that must be fundamentally within a person, and they determine their decisions.
While I agree with you that a person cannot be 100% good or bad in the moment, I think those terms can also be defined in retrospect, and someone can still be good or bad based on their previous actions, regardless if that pertains to their choices.
Can light emit darkness?
I’d say that’s a false analogy. Light doesn’t have the quality of being light/dark, it is light. A better analogy would be if we made it about temperature. While cold cannot be hot, a cold object can become a hot object.
Right , you didn't create it. You discovered it and it was given to you to rearrange or stylize . But that's correct, you didn't create it . Nobody has created anything including good.
Let’s say that I had never read hamlet before, and I believed I was creating it. While I wasn’t the first to write it, I still came up with the idea, and I still “created” this work, even though someone had done so before. So it is with good. It doesn’t need to be original to exist, it just has to be original for the creator.
A person doing good. Not a good person. No good exists in you. Remember the good is already there outside of you as it is not within you.
Once again, “good/bad” is not a trait you can have in the moment, however it is one that can be applied to you in retrospect. I agree with you that last behavior doesn’t predict future behavior when it comes to morals, but you could still take a dead person and say that they were a good person. The key difference is between the property “good” that exists within you, and the property “good” which can be applied to you, still being a trait of yours. I believe in the later, not the former.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Here’s the way I see it. You have examples of physical things being good or bad, such as a TV. If the TV is truly good in nature, then it will fulfill its function well and it won’t have trouble doing so, like lagging. Well let’s say the TV is very good for a while, and then once it doesn’t turn on. After that incident, it goes back to being a very good TV.
The TV is still good, even though bad came out of it. Nothing can ever produce all good or all bad, so the true measure of “goodness” is how much it produces relative to how much bad it produces."
Oh you got to prove that. "Nothing can never produce all good." There are multiple things that are always good. From things in your particular diet, health and wellness being physically fit. Learning the basic necessities in education.
Speaking away from the natural side, let's talk about religion. Adam and Eve if you happen to believe, everything that was made was good. The last man Adam said there is none good but one . People say he's good, all the time.
So where you struggle I see now, in your worldview, there's no such thing as good nature, all good, so therefore to have good to still exist, you will have to say good will be associated with bad.
As far as the television goes, there's a reason for everything. Just as the people in the garden of Eden got corrupted, so did the television. It was good. Until something came involved to disrupt that and corrupt the nature.
There was no bad there. Something has to spawn it.
"While I agree with you that a person cannot be 100% good or bad in the moment, I think those terms can also be defined in retrospect, and someone can still be good or bad based on their previous actions, regardless if that pertains to their choices."
But people have no good in them. How can a person produce something she or he doesn't have?
The person doesn't. The person discovers what is good as it manifests in reality.
"I’d say that’s a false analogy. Light doesn’t have the quality of being light/dark, it is light. A better analogy would be if we made it about temperature. While cold cannot be hot, a cold object can become a hot object. "
How can light be light without the quality of light?
As far as temperature and an object, since you brought that up, people are objects that can have a hot or cold temperature caused by what is not inherent but what is already crafted in reality to cause the different temperatures.
Likewise people aren't inherently good or bad but involve themselves in what is already crafted in the universe to cause different actions labeled as good and bad.
You can't get good out of bad and vice versa. That's an oxymoron. This is where you learn certain things are neutral like people, freedom and slavery.
Are babies good because they're babies?
No.
"Let’s say that I had never read hamlet before, and I believed I was creating it. While I wasn’t the first to write it, I still came up with the idea, and I still “created” this work, even though someone had done so before. So it is with good. It doesn’t need to be original to exist, it just has to be original for the creator."
In this example, you've just proven that us "creating" things is an illusion. In this scenario, it is given that you didn't create something and you think you did. You can think you created or believe you created the whole universe by whatever reasoning you can come up with. Reality is according to the evidence of people never creating anything.
It's always going to be original for the actual creator. It's going to be a false original to some psuedo maker.
You've never created good. If you did, what is the material you used to design the natural laws for it to exist by?
"Once again, “good/bad” is not a trait you can have in the moment, however it is one that can be applied to you in retrospect. I agree with you that last behavior doesn’t predict future behavior when it comes to morals, but you could still take a dead person and say that they were a good person. The key difference is between the property “good” that exists within you, and the property “good” which can be applied to you, still being a trait of yours. I believe in the later, not the former."
It's not a trait you have at all. It can be applied to you not from within but what is outside you as a factor that is found, applied and administered.
Once you look at good as in nature, you'd see the validity but you're using a social parameter. What you're saying is what they teach you from the cradle.
Puffing yourself up with credit of good deeds vs bad deeds.
Where do you draw the line? If you done 51 percent good, does one percent really diminish and devalue the wrongdoings?
What if the number was higher? Now the question is, why that specific higher number? How much higher? Why not higher? It just gets arbitrary. The social parameter definition is arbitrary.
No good or bad people at all. A bad person can't do some good. A good person can't do some bad. The language is all messed up.
Con
#6
Oh you got to prove that. "Nothing can never produce all good." There are multiple things that are always good. From things in your particular diet, health and wellness being physically fit. Learning the basic necessities in education.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Some things can be all good, or all bad, but my point is that things can be good and bad without being completely good or bad. The TV is still good even though it was bad once, and people can still be bad after doing good once. It's all about the net balance of things. Did that person do more good than bad in the course of their life? If so, then they were good.
But people have no good in them. How can a person produce something she or he doesn't have?
That's the wrong order of things. Someone doesn't do good things because they are inherently "good", they become good by doing "good" things. Like I said, it's all about retrospect. Good isn't a quality within someone, it's a label that can be applied when looking at that person's life as a whole.
How can light be light without the quality of light?
Light doesn't have the quality of light, it is the quality of light.
As far as temperature and an object, since you brought that up, people are objects that can have a hot or cold temperature caused by what is not inherent but what is already crafted in reality to cause the different temperatures.Likewise people aren't inherently good or bad but involve themselves in what is already crafted in the universe to cause different actions labeled as good and bad.
It doesn't really matter if the people control their body temperature, they are still hot or cold, right?
In this example, you've just proven that us "creating" things is an illusion. In this scenario, it is given that you didn't create something and you think you did. You can think you created or believe you created the whole universe by whatever reasoning you can come up with. Reality is according to the evidence of people never creating anything.It's always going to be original for the actual creator. It's going to be a false original to some psuedo maker.You've never created good. If you did, what is the material you used to design the natural laws for it to exist by?
But that's the problem, you don't need to create good to do good. In my example, I would say that you did technically create Hamlet, seeing as you went through the same creative process as Shakespeare, and came to the same conclusion. Shakespeare did it before you, but you still did it.
Where do you draw the line? If you done 51 percent good, does one percent really diminish and devalue the wrongdoings?What if the number was higher? Now the question is, why that specific higher number? How much higher? Why not higher? It just gets arbitrary. The social parameter definition is arbitrary.No good or bad people at all. A bad person can't do some good. A good person can't do some bad. The language is all messed up.
Sure, you were good if you did 51% good. You did more good than bad, so you put a net good out into the world. That doesn't diminish the bad things you did, it just balances them out on the cosmic scale of morality. A good person can do bad, and a bad person can do good, it just matters which you did more of.
Round 4
Pro
#7
" wouldn't necessarily say that. Some things can be all good, or all bad, but my point is that things can be good and bad without being completely good or bad. "
Good you recanted what you said : "Nothing can never produce all good."
Now you saying some things.
"Some things can be all good"
"The TV is still good even though it was bad once, and people can still be bad after doing good once. It's all about the net balance of things. Did that person do more good than bad in the course of their life? If so, then they were good."
The television is good because it was bad. Meaning no longer. It can't be bad doing good function and vice versa. Now you can use whatever arbitrary definition you use for good. I could use one myself saying as long as you do do good you are good regardless of the amount.
As long as the last thing you did was good. Then you can flip flop it. According to your definition, you can flip flop it too based on quantity or the majority amount.
But I have gotten no rebuttal from you on good when you base it on being a nature. You can't refute light being unable to emit darkness.
You to be honest, must concede light has a nature for it is what it is. Like darkness, like fire like a television like good.
We use good strictly this way when talking about everything else that's good. Good food, good exercise, good movie, good book. These are things that are just down right good every time you refer to them.
But when it comes to people, socially we meaning you all have become to leniency or give much leeway, much complacency and satisfaction to whatever is satisfying to yourselves. There comes into liberalism away from the fundamentals, the basics, the foundations, the roots, the deep down beginnings which what is deep down is innate, it is inherent and what is in nature .
But getting back to the epicenter of the topic. When it comes to other things, it doesn't get mixed up. Just with people. Good grades in an academic curriculum are always what they represent. A good pupil and student. A very studious student. A very good student or a good student receives good grades, not bad ones.
I have good eyes. My vision is not blurred or inaccurate. So I can perform well at whatever I'm doing. In school work or anything else, it's good.
If I can't read words to get a good grade, my vision is not good. Then my grade won't be as well. All of this of what I do is not good. So to say I do bad things and you call me good is a non sequitur.
"That's the wrong order of things. Someone doesn't do good things because they are inherently "good", they become good by doing "good" things. Like I said, it's all about retrospect. Good isn't a quality within someone, it's a label that can be applied when looking at that person's life as a whole."
Then by this logic, dark comes from light. Totally illogical. It's a label you say. It is a socially constructed label. But the order of things says light comes from light and in it there's no darkness.
"Light doesn't have the quality of light, it is the quality of light."
It's the same difference. You're being finicky over the arrangement of words. A thing can't be what it is without having what it is to make it what it is. This is not really up for contention.
"It doesn't really matter if the people control their body temperature, they are still hot or cold, right? "
They are either hot or cold. They're not producing cold while being called hot. Do you get it? If I'm hot, why would I be producing cold?
This is what you're saying and society is saying. That I'm being called good while, while , while producing bad. So good example using the temperatures. Excellent illustration of my point.
I can't produce cold when I'm hot . I can't be good doing bad.
"But that's the problem, you don't need to create good to do good.
I didn't say you need to. I've been arguing you can't. I've been arguing it has to exist before you can do it or better yet discover it to use it and apply it. Plus doing it and being it are not the same.
" In my example, I would say that you did technically create Hamlet, seeing as you went through the same creative process as Shakespeare, and came to the same conclusion. Shakespeare did it before you, but you still did it."
That would be a lie. I did not create something that already exists. See we have to be honest here about the way things really are. I don't know if it's indoctrination or what but in society it has been pushed to take non rightful credit.
We have to admit that we're discovering much of what is here just as folks have founded different parts of the world.
"Sure, you were good if you did 51% good. You did more good than bad, so you put a net good out into the world. That doesn't diminish the bad things you did, it just balances them out on the cosmic scale of morality. A good person can do bad, and a bad person can do good, it just matters which you did more of."
You know it's funny. Even the law and justice system doesn't work that way. I could do or discover to use 99 percent good. But 1 percent of non good could get me life in prison just as much as a person that has committed 99 percent bad. See it just flip flops. What truly exists doesn't flip or non exist in one area than flips to another and back. That's just no real existence of a thing being non fixated like that. No flips according to nature. Light is always light never dark. Good is good and where there is bad the two will never cross. That's as far as we can go with it.
Con
#8
The television is good because it was bad. Meaning no longer. It can't be bad doing good function and vice versa. Now you can use whatever arbitrary definition you use for good. I could use one myself saying as long as you do do good you are good regardless of the amount.As long as the last thing you did was good. Then you can flip flop it. According to your definition, you can flip flop it too based on quantity or the majority amount.But I have gotten no rebuttal from you on good when you base it on being a nature. You can't refute light being unable to emit darkness.You to be honest, must concede light has a nature for it is what it is. Like darkness, like fire like a television like good.
My definition isn't really arbitrary, because it's about the majority. If an object is more hot than cold, it's hot, if a room is more light than dark, it's light, and if a person has done more good than bad, they are good.
And again with the problem of light, light can't emit darkness not because it has the property of light, but because it is light. If a person was the property of bad, they wouldn't be able to emit good, but instead people can have the property of bad retroactively applied to them.
Then by this logic, dark comes from light. Totally illogical. It's a label you say. It is a socially constructed label. But the order of things says light comes from light and in it there's no darkness.
Well to really get into it, darkness is nothing but the absence of light. Darkness comes from light not being present, but you have to remember that these things are the property themselves, and people can have the property applied to themselves. There's a key difference.
I didn't say you need to. I've been arguing you can't. I've been arguing it has to exist before you can do it or better yet discover it to use it and apply it. Plus doing it and being it are not the same.
Sure, doing good and being good aren't the same, but this is the biggest thing we disagree about. You say that a person just has the inherently quality of good, and that causes them to do good. I believe the opposite, in that by doing good, a person earns the trait of being good in retrospect.
Conclusion
I don't have the energy to write a good conclusion right now, so I'll keep it short and sweet. Obviously the Sources, Legibility, and Conduct sections shouldn't be awarded. I believe that I have won the Arguments portion. I have provided many satisfactory rebuttals, and they have gone unnoticed by my opponent. I also believe my opponent has not done a great job with their rebuttals. Anyways, Vote Con!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro began debate in a frankly confusing and non-topical manner, using twisted logic to say that 'No human beings exist' (???). He also began with the incredibly weak argument that there are no good people because Neely Fuller Jr. claims everyone is racist (which could be an entirely separate debate.) Pro also was unclear on definitions of 'good and bad people', making points about 'good' referring to functionality as well as morality. Pro's overuse of analogies also made his arguments confusing, and he additionally had less than ideal legibility. Pro's main argument was that it is impossible for someone to be 'good' or 'bad' since all humans do both 'good' and 'bad' actions, and no 'good' thing can create 'bad' (and vice versa). That argument is an opinion however, and not a commonly agreed upon fact.
I believe Con was more clear about what they were arguing, but I will leave this debate as a tie due to a lack of an absolute definition for the main terms. There can be no clear winner if there is no clear point to argue. If one accepts Pro's definition of 'good and bad people' as 'being 100% good with no bad in their nature' (or vice versa), then Pro wins. If one accepts Con's definition of 'good and bad people' as 'someone who produces significantly greater good than bad in their lifetime' (or vice versa), then Con wins. I believe Con did a better job overall throughout this debate, but cannot unfortunately give him the vote for this reason.
probably time to start soliciting votes
Well, finally, something I agree with from you.
Could I get some definitions?