Are people basically good?
Debate Rounds (2)
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.
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.
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?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.