Are human motivations purely selfish?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Pros issue here, is that he spells out what his position is, and the criteria under which actions can be judged, and not once did he provide a justification for his position or argument to fundamentally support that his position is correct.
What I mean by this, is that pro proceeds to assert that all motivations are selfish, then sets himself up to shoot down all counter examples. At no point that I can see does pro attempt to explain the reasoning for this position, and justify it logically or systematically.
While I won’t necessarily agree that pro has lol the burden of proof, he has at least some of it, and his focus in what rather than why really lets him down in this discussion.
Importantly, pros position is eroded by his first response - claiming babies behaviour is arbitrary. This acknowledgement is basically conceding that in this case the motivations of the mini human is not solely racist and thus a single example of what appears to be not purely selfish action has been encountered. Pro himself repeatedly makes the case, that babies actions are not purely selfish - and they in fact do not fit into any social construxtZ
As a result, the remaining parts of the debate and arguments are largely moot, as the debate resolution is clearly negated by this example.
Arguments to con.
Conduct from both sides deteriorated and turned petulant towards the end. Watch that.
Argument point.
Pros argument was that seemingly selfless behaviors were actually selfish in nature. Pro main points are: Pleasure and Gain, Preservation, Public image, and self image. While this does account for the model without selflessness, it does not rule out selflessness. Let's look at Con.
Con makes an intuitive argument concerning selfless behavior in babies. Pro responded by casting doubt saying that we can't know if they're being selfless, but this also brought Pro's side into question as well, I believe this maybe the fatal error for Pro. But I'll read on.
Con then shows that Pro's 4 standards can have contradictions and Pro made no effort to provide a standard for handling this.
Con then points out that Pro has not proven the argument which is true at the moment.
Pro then goes onto completely sink his own argument in round two by saying
"According to you, babies will "altruistically" share with others. While this may appear to be the case, I'm not sure that babies have a clear conception of their actions' effects. I would call these actions arbitrary at best since they're not really done to be kind. I've seen babies do kind things when asked, which might indicate selfless action, but I think it's more of a social construct of "mommy asked, so do it." Babies can't really be asked their motivations, so you'd have to do more extensive research before you convince me on this one."
By saying that the behavior was arbitrary, Pro is essentially admitting that it's not selfish which indirectly concedes the debate topic. Not only did Pro not retract or amend this statement, but Pro actually goes on to assert the same thing again later on in the debate. This combined with Con's initial critiques is enough to aware the Argument Point to Con.
Tied in all others.
Most humans are selfish and there is nothing wrong with this. Otherwise, you would see everyone sponsoring as many children as they could. People care most about themselves, and I don't see anything wrong with this.
lol. I love it.
Hey, it looks silly, but it's a good rhetorical device if you want to get a bunch of questions off the table real quick in order.
"Me: What makes you an expert?
You: Me.
Me: *plugging in headphones*"
I took inspiration from you :D
Thanks.
i copy and paste what the person says then hit quotes button
How do you do the quote-y things? My attempt failed.
I haven’t.
Don't forget.
I would probably take Pro's side in the topic but I would also add that I believe altruism can be reached by purely selfish means.