The Instigator
moss
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Are people basically good?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
missmedic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 71460
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

moss

Con

The first round will be acceptance and opening argument(s). The second round will be rebuttals, and, if need be, more arguments for your position. Please keep rage levels to a minimum. Without further adieu, my opening argument.

Are people basically good? Based on what I have observed, they are not. Poverty does not cause crime, nor does any other outside force. Of course, it causes a percentage of it, but that is a minimal percentage. Based on my information, that is the only way to explain crime if people are basically good. If people are basically good, some outside force must be the cause for crime. But if people are basically good, why does the majority raise their children to be good? Your parents have always told you, "Say thank you!" and "Say please!" along with many other instructions. If people are basically good, why do we need laws? If we are basically good, then laws would be useless! Clearly laws aren't useless, and we must admit, no matter how much we hate it, that people are not basically good. We do bad things because it's tempting to, and that it accords with human nature.
missmedic

Pro

I believe that people are basically good.
We have laws to help provide for our general safety to regulate society and protect people. Most but not all people are good and laws make things fair for all groups of people. As for crime there are many causes, depression and other social and mental disorders, regionalism, lack of impulse-control, fatherless homes, peer pressure, racism, politics, poverty and overpopulation. In spite of this not all but most individuals are basically good. When people are freed from fear, want, and desperation people will usually do the right thing. The majority of people are good and willing to help others, in many cultures it is a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews. Good parents want to raise good children so we teach them to understand and learn what is important to value.
http://www.buzzfeed.com...
Debate Round No. 1
moss

Con

If people are basically good, why have there been so many horrible people, (Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden) that wouldn't hesitate to mass murder, but instead are proud of their horrid deeds? If people are bassically good, then if there were no laws, wouldn't the majority keep in check with the previous laws? This is obviously not true, if people are basically good then there would be no need to teach the majority of children what and what not to value. Yes, what you listed can cause crime, but to say that it is ALWAYS the case defies common sense. Yes, there is good in the world, as Victor Laslow from Casablanca said, "We each have a destiny, for good, or for evil." Only if you have willpower and values that are more important to you will enable you to turn down the wrong choice. The next time you want to, say, eat an extra snack, ask yourself, is it because of all those things you listed, or is it because of your human nature tempting you to do wrong?
missmedic

Pro

Those are but a few bad people and they stand like a becon of what we can all recognise what not to be , that is why we stand appaled by what we see, becuase we are basicly good people. Laws keep things fair so the strong and the weak have the same advantages. If we look to science (the first and best scource to acquire knowledge) to answer this question we find that people are good. Our instinct or intuition is to help others, becuase we our naturally cooperative. We would instinctively help a person in destress, if we seen a child drowning we would reach out to help without thought. It is becuase of these instincts that we are basically good people.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
If you didn't have to teach your "seven children" how to behave, than science would dictate that you are the exception not the rule. Anyway, why don't you accept this challenge MissMedic, I'd be interesting to see how you would do.
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
MissMedic, yes, as they get older. You're bringing up nature vs. nurture. I have seen some genuinely sweet parents who set the best example and their kids still need to be taught how to behave. If you truly believe that children are born with good morals, have a baby and let me know how that goes for you. No matter what example you set, your kids always need to learn that lying is bad, sharing is good, and so forth.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
children learn by example and mimic what they see, they are a reflection of the parents
Posted by logicinlife 1 year ago
logicinlife
I wanted to accept the challenge until I saw that you were Con in this debate. I think a good point you could make is that children need to be taught how to be good, and by nature they are selfish and rude. I don't mean to offend, but it seems as if this is a great example. I have a daughter and she is just now getting to the point where she is seeing things like, "this is mine. I do what I want." Great topic, though!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
mossmissmedicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate could have been better. Con argues (1) crime proves people are bad and (2) Bad people (e.g. Hitler) have existed. Pro effective refutes (1) early on, stating many factors cause crime and although laws are needed to work out the rough edges, the vast majority of people are law abiding with or without the rules. (2) is a weak argument because just because there is one evil person does not mean everyone is evil, as Pro notes. Pro even uses evidence for his claims--Con doesn't--which makes them more convincing. Also since he had sources and Con didn't, I also awarded source points.