The Instigator
NPDAgeek
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MyDinosaurHands
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Evil exists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 653 times Debate No: 44299
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

NPDAgeek

Con

Value debate.

Vote on who is more convincing, who's logic supports their position better.

Round 1: Acceptance interpretation

Round 2: Constructive phase

Round 3: Answering phase

Round 4: Summary and reason to vote.
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I assume by acceptance interpretation my opponent means that I should say I accept and state how I interpret evil to exist.

Evil exists as an idea.
Debate Round No. 1
NPDAgeek

Con

Objective evil is immeasurable by the methods of man, there are only ideas, and the idea of evil is the idea that evil exists objectively, which we debate.

Whether or not the idea of evil exists is just a coin flip of who gets pro, unless you want to debate the existence of ideas, using ideas.

If my opponent violates the interpretation of the debate, then you vote them down before voting on the round, much like a flag thrown after the play, procedure must procedure the actions of the debate. This is to ensure a fair round, allowing both the ability to meet their arguments together so that the most logical analysis can be held. Education is the objective of debate, not winning or losing, a fair debate is most educational.

We are debating on the existence of a thing called evil.

THIS IS A VALUE DEBATE, YOU WILL VOTE ON THE MOST CONVINCING ANALYSIS BY WHO SUPPORTS THEIR CLAIM BEST

Contention 1 From Whence Cometh Evil?

A) FREE WILL VS NECESSITY
i. Tolstoys metaphor describes a man sinking who pulls a man from shore to the depths, a starving mother of an infant who steals bread, and a soldier in rank executing an order to kill an innocent civilian.
ii. The sinking man was drowning, and grabbed anything to keep from doing so, the mother broke the law to breastfeed her child who she would not allow to starve, and the soldier was conditioned to follow orders absolutely and without question lest he be court marshaled and imprisoned.
iii. The balance of freedom and necessity in an action depend upon the understanding of the situation witnessed from whatever perspective. I.E. nobody in jail is guilty, it is always a mistake.
iv. Man and all actions we take, feelings we feel, are inevitable phenomenon of which nothing, even consciousness can control, unless one tries to look only at the face value of an action.

B) RELATIVE MORALITY AND YOU
i. If you wished a dog dead and it died, then the death of the dog is good, if you wished the dog survived and it died it would be bad, if you wished for your childs happiness but didn't care about the dog and it died it would be bad.
ii. Stimuli is filtered through belief, what one holds to be a priority dictates the morality of an action.
iii. Morality is subjective and depends on the relativity of the action, there are plenty of people dying right now, plenty of orphans being made, why aren't you crying? There are plenty of babies being born, plenty of villains being reformed, why aren't you jumping for joy?
iv. Morals are subjective

C) THE ACT OR THE APPLAUSE?
i. What dictates the quality of the show?
ii. A single act, or the overall impact of every act?
iii. Can an actor forget his line, in a good show?
iv. Can an actor deliver the perfect monologue in a bad show?
v. Neither action nor consequence matter, only the opinion of the viewer.

D) THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH
i. Everything inherently neutral
ii. Morals are subjective
iii. Absolute evil is a myth
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

"If my opponent violates the interpretation of the debate, then you vote them down before voting on the round, much like a flag thrown after the play, procedure must procedure the actions of the debate."

My opponent should've said 'Evil exists as an idea' wasn't fair game when he started this debate. It's hardly fair for me to see this debate, formulate an opinion, join, post my stance, and then have my opponent tell voters (for the first time) to downvote me if I use the argument.



My Argument

Obviously this is a debate centering around objectivity. What evil is/means is subjective, so I won't start with evil itself, I will start with ideas.

Ideas are not something we can physically touch, only something that exists in our minds/imaginations. We can objectively say that ideas exist, all people have ideas. When a person thinks of an idea, they have conceived of a notion in the realm of reality, it should be considered real.

If it is objectively true that ideas exist, then it can be true that evil exists as an idea. What exactly the idea of evil is, is subject to the holder of each idea, but no matter the subjective interpretation of what it means, we know that it does exist-no matter the form-as an idea.
Debate Round No. 2
NPDAgeek

Con

Skirting around my main contention we find the topicality argument.

As I previously state

"Objective evil is immeasurable by the methods of man, there are only ideas, and the idea of evil is the idea that evil exists objectively, which we debate."

"Whether or not the idea of evil exists is just a coin flip of who gets pro, unless you want to debate the existence of ideas, using ideas."

You will cross apply these two points to my opponents justification of his non-topical interpretation of the resolution. He wants to debate the existence of ideas, whatever the subjective context, and prove the existence of evil by proving the existence of a thought, which as we both have stated is the only provable thing.

His interpretation of the resolution that I gave him "EVIL EXISTS" was that evil exists as an idea. If I had meant that I would have said that, but I didn't because that would be a loaded debate.

If my opponent is allowed to add to the resolution instead of just interpret it, you allow him to add anything he wants. Meaning he could say, evil caneval exists, evil doesn't exist, evil exists nowhere, evil exists but only in the mind of Dennis Leary or anything he chooses.

Extra topicality does not add to the debate, it allows whoever is Pro to rewrite the resolution however they please.

The IDEA is that evil exists.

Two words, interpret evil, interpret exists, then write a claim.

"My opponent should've said 'Evil exists as an idea' wasn't fair game when he started this debate. It's hardly fair for me to see this debate, formulate an opinion, join, post my stance, and then have my opponent tell voters (for the first time) to downvote me if I use the argument."

We must always call on the rules, the reason is to ensure a fair debate, which is the link to an educational one. We look to the best and most universal interpretation in order to be on the same level, and be talking about the same thing.

How could I have known to say "Pro is not allowed to say, evil exists as an idea" before you even said it?
That is why that came out in my constructive.

VOTE HERE-to ensure fair debates, this takes priority over the rest of the debate, because a vote in the direction of fair play will have a positive effect on the mindset of debaters in this forum, when it comes to skewing the resolution.

)()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(

If you do not agree with the procedural, let me answer his paragraph.

"If it is objectively true that ideas exist, then it can be true that evil exists as an idea."

This is a canned argument, you could say this about anything. If it objectively true that ideas exist, then we could say elephants made of bananas that shoot lasers from their trunks exists as an idea.

Despite the fact that he relies on unwarranted claims to support his extra topicality, I am going to refer to this being a value debate weighed on analysis and supporting logic, which weighs heavily to one side of this closed case.
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

Rebuttal

"This is a canned argument, you could say this about anything. If it objectively true that ideas exist, then we could say elephants made of bananas that shoot lasers from their trunks exists as an idea."

It is true that you could say this about anything, but I don't see why that is a detriment to my argument. Even though my opponent has used a zanier example with laser shooting bandana elephants, it doesn't change the fact that it can exist as an idea, as long as the idea did actually occur to someone.
Debate Round No. 3
NPDAgeek

Con

NPDAgeek forfeited this round.
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

End debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Dimeirex 3 years ago
Dimeirex
Hmm. Quite the qualitative argument we have here. This ought to be fun.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
I was going to accept Con but 3,000 char please change.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
NPDAgeekMyDinosaurHandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
NPDAgeekMyDinosaurHandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't usually like giving all the points to one side, but here's my justification. Con changed the terms of the debate in round 2; conduct to pro for continuing to argue his side despite Con's "moving the goalposts" I saw that Pro's argument was primarily concerning the Resolution where Con's argument was off topic. S&G is really for structure. Con made some unsubstantial bullet points in the form of questions which means he really chooses not to state a case at all for most of his issues. What little Con did present was relative to the conclusion that Evil does exist as an idea despite his claims that pro was breaking a rule not fully disclosed in the acceptance round.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 3 years ago
PiercedPanda
NPDAgeekMyDinosaurHandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF