Man is not good by nature.

(Thank you for joining this debate. Please forgive me if my replies are a bit delayed, but I've had a lot on my plate lately :v)

Generally, I think we agree on the animalistic instincts of humans, but if I understand correctly, you lean more toward the belief that human beings are inherently closer to good. I must admit that lately I've been torn between moral constructivism and moral objectivism, specifically when reflecting on human nature.
I will repeat my thesis: by nature, humans are essentially neither good nor bad. Feeling empathy toward a friend is just as primal as ruthlessly finishing off our enemies or antagonizing our foes.
However, assuming that humans created morality, I align more with Kant, who argued that the moral norms we've established simply work in practice (there are a lot of nuances to this thesis, but that's a topic for another time). If we tried to imagine a different kind of morality—a different metric for good and evil—we would quickly realize that we wouldn't be able to survive even in small groups, let alone in a civilization.
I believe that—leaving aside any belief in a higher entity that imposes objective, undeniable moral norms for us to discover—we created these norms ourselves. We did so not primarily because we initially deemed them 'good,' but because they proved effective in the long run.

Greetings,
To begin with, your argument appears to shift from your original thesis. Initially, you argued that humans are not good by nature; however, in your recent response, you seem to adopt a more neutral position, suggesting that humans are neither inherently good nor bad. This shift, while subtle, significantly weakens the strength of your original claim, as it moves away from disproving inherent goodness to merely asserting neutrality.

Moving on, you argue that moral norms “work in practice,” but this does not necessarily prove that they are purely constructed. Rather, their effectiveness suggests that they align with pre-existing human tendencies such as empathy and cooperation. If morality were entirely artificial, it would not function so consistently across different contexts and societies.

Therefore, the practicality of moral norms does not indicate their artificial origin, but instead reflects their foundation in inherent human tendencies. This further supports the view that human beings possess an innate capacity for goodness, rather than morality being solely a product of external societal constructs.

thanks ( it's fun to debate with you! )

Greetings,
The opponent’s failure to respond in the previous round leaves my arguments uncontested. As such, my position stands: human beings possess inherent tendencies of empathy and cooperation, indicating that goodness is rooted within human nature rather than solely constructed by society.

Greetings,
The opponent has once again failed to respond, leaving my arguments uncontested. In the absence of any sustained rebuttal, my position stands: human beings possess inherent tendencies of empathy and cooperation, indicating that goodness is rooted within human nature rather than solely constructed by society.

Thanks!