The Instigator
pinkshoop
Pro (for)
The Contender
NightSpeaks
Con (against)

Are Humans Inherently Good or Bad?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
pinkshoop has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 347 times Debate No: 104670
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

pinkshoop

Pro

People never hear about a person who kills just to kill. There is always a reason on why. Whether one being has done another wrong and seeks revenge. Usually done when at the age of an adult because that is when humans are most corrupt and damaged with society. We never change the channel on the television to the news and see that a young child has killed or has attempted to kill someone. Since they are at their most innocent age, they have no evil intentions. "Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of cultural influence " they don't have many friends, have never been to school and haven't read any books". There is always good in people, but as time goes on, that amount shrinks due to the type of experience that certain person has been through and becomes replaced with evil.
But does this mean that we are naturally cooperative, or that it has become instinctive because cooperation is rewarded by society?
NightSpeaks

Con

I accept the challenge.

~~~Definitions~~~
serial killer: a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern.

murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

~~~Response~~~
A) You are incorrect. There have been people who kill JUST to kill. They are called "serial killers." Examples of these include Harold Shipman (Also known as Dr. Death, confirmed kills: 218), Ed Gein (The inspiration for Psycho, killed 11), and Jeffrey Dahmer (Killed 17)

B) You are also incorrect. While it is less common to see child killers, it doesn't mean they are so rare that they prove a good enough point. Examples include Jon Venables (killed 2-year-old James Bulger on purpose with the help of his friend), Joshua Phillips (Accidentally bashed another kid in the head with a baseball bat, but then VOLUNTARILY stabbed her to stop her screaming), and Mary Bell (Strangled a 4-year-old victim with the quote "solely for the pleasure and excitement.")

~~~Claims~~~
A) I claim that a definition of "evil" is not what we believe it to be. The universal term for evil can be defined as, "A behavior, often at the expense of others, that is considered to be malicious and unjust by society." I prefer to define "evil" as, "Any act at the expense of another- human or animal- that has no reasoning to it." While these definitions seem similar, the first recognizes that our idea of evil changes as society grows, which is true. However, evil itself shouldn't change, just how we recognize it. The second one sets a baseline for what evil is and, as such, is easier to explain and is easier supported by moral and ethical ideas.

B) I believe that people are born neutral- neither good nor bad. If they are born with a sociopathic nature or psychopathic nature, that greatly increases the chance that they will become my personal definition of "evil" in the future: not a definite fact, but a possibility. You become "good" or "evil" depending on the environment. In a way, this is close to what you said. However, you stated that people are born naturally good, when in fact they are born with no capacity to think outside of themselves. If you aren't a socio/psychopath, that ability to empathize will grow if given nourishment.

~~~Example~~~
Let me give you an example. What if a child was an orphan raised to the age of six. They know how to speak and have a basic understanding of human nature- but only a very basic understanding. Then, they are abandoned for a reason unknown to them. Because they've been around good people for the first six years of their life and, according to your claim, they are naturally good- does this mean they won't feel bitter that they were abandoned? Even a six-year-old has the capacity to feel bitter or angry, especially if a huge event happened that caused them to be abandoned. And, let's say they have no contact with humanity for about a year before being adopted by a new family. They're still seven years old, which certainly qualifies as a child. They haven't grown to the point where, according to your statement, all the good inside them has shrunk, have they? But that child has been left bitter and angry because their only good contact with humanity has been replaced by that world-shattering abandonment. Is this child still good, or is the child evil? I propose it is neutral, but certainly does has potential to become "evil."
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
Humans are inherently humans. So to ask if the human being is good or bad is irelevant..
Posted by MindMaster 2 months ago
MindMaster
"People never hear about a person who kills just to kill. There is always a reason on why." This is False. The Definition of Serial Killer is "a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern." What about the mass shooting in Las Vegas? Did he have a reason to kill 500 people. Did he have a reason to kill so and so in that concert? He couldn't have known every person he wanted to murder and shot them one by one. No, so that statement is false.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.