The Instigator
EvilFuckinLee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Good and Evil. True facts, or fabricated fiction.

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 1 vote the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 59773
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

EvilFuckinLee

Con

Suppose the decadence of man is persuaded by an unknown advisory,
Some may call him the Devil, others may call him god.

But what if that advisory was us ourselves?
What if we are all supposed to work as one?
One singular unit, one singular wavelength of intelligence.
Imagine, a world where no one disagrees.
Everyones striving to make the world better for their fellow man.
A world where no one is offended by anything.
A world where Good and Evil don"t exist.
Well that"s the whole big scheme isn"t it?

Good and Evil.

Democrats, Republicans.

You divide something, it can never be whole.
So, we have the internal and eternal struggle, that is Good.

And Evil.

But imagine if there was no good and evil, there was only what is.
No morals binding the human race down.
Morals and Ideals are what cause all the trouble in the first place!
I"m not saying bring on the Anarchy.
I believe people are mostly "good" decent human beings.
If you don"t mess with me I won"t mess with you.
Imagine if every human on the planet was raised that way.
That was how they thought.

Could the Advisory, the Devil, the bad guys..
Could they be the good guys trying to wake us up from a pre
morally programmed dream we"ve all been living in?

Or have I just been taking too much acid.
phantom

Pro

Suppose the decadence of man is persuaded by an unkown advisory

When the decadence of man is approached by some mysterious advisor, the decadence of man is most likely on shrooms.


Some may call him the Devil, others may call him god.

I doubt devils and gods exists, but OK.


But what if that advisory was us ourselves?

Or the hallucination of an acid trip?


What if we are all supposed to work as one?

Then someone other than John Lennon would have told us.


Imagine a world where no one disagrees

That would be terrible.

We'd probably be wrong on a good many things but no one would challenge anyone since we'd all agree. We'd literally never progress. This would be literally the worst example of herd mentallity and herd morality possible. The herd is blinded by its faith in the above. Equality and utopia are equally blinding. Any false comforts and mind dulling efforts to overcome loneliness and avoid facing reality reduces man to the stupidity and complacency of the herd. "No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse." The herd animal doesn't think. It blindly follows the rest of the animals.


Everyone striving to make the world better for their fellow man...Socialist utopia...A world where no one is offended...

I'll take the side of sovereign individuality. The primary force in nature is the will to power. The will to power with natural selection has thrust beast to man and it will continue to push man forward. Man is the link between the beast and the overman. Man is something to be overcome. If man has a purpose, it is to go extinct, so a new 'overman' can inhabit earth. The overman will be a supreme individualist. "Though shalt" will become the overman's "I will!" The last man will question love, beauty, creation, and longing. The last man will say 'one loves his neighbor so as to keep himself warm'. Man is lost to the world. The overman will conquor it.

The will to power is how man pushes forward. You say strive to make the world better for your fellow man. Altruism necessarily depletes one's own store of power. The weak are destined to perish, so man can continually grow stronger. Man is divided between the inferior and superior. Stifling this distinction breeds mediocrity. Diminishing oneself for the sake of the inferior stifles man's push forward. Greatness becomes even less rare. "He who does not obey himself, will be commanded. This is the nature of living things"

The prevalent classes of society are the slave class and the master class. It is not the duty of others to help those of the slave class reach the master class. Only those fit enough make the transition. Those unfit to be in the master class decend into the slave class. Some are content to be in the slave class. They are necessarily inferior for they have little will to power. The herd denies its will and thus contributes to the ruin of society. Values are personal not societal. Man is inherently selfish and should embrace his nature. Selflessness destroys greatness. Man must be able to reach the full height of his capacity. Herd morality, equality, and selflessness smothers our drive as individuals.

"Man" = men and women by the way.


What my opponent wants is a blind hope, impossible, ruinous to man, a herd mentality, and destroys every bit of greatness and the capacity to progress in man. It ignores man's fundemental nature and the fundemental force of nature--the will to power.



Sources:
1. Thus Spake Zarathustra
2. Beyond Good and Evil


Debate Round No. 1
EvilFuckinLee

Con

Ah my friend you misinterpreted me.

"Suppose the decadence of man is persuaded by an unkown advisory

When the decadence of man is approached by some mysterious advisor, the decadence of man is most likely on shrooms."

Advisory: adjective
having or consisting in the power to make recommendations but not to take action enforcing them

I take offense to your blunt projectile of believing that the only way a figure of conflict can arise to, as you say, advise the population is only possible due to the effects of hallucinogenics.
We have had many of these characters throughout history, a person who rises up and causes a stir throughout the nation, or even the world. Problem is, after they're dead, or now with our new attention spans, after a few days the whole world does not even bat an eyelash. They're just focused on mindless consumerism, like all good Americans.
The world has many of these advisory characters, none which are ever truly seen.
Many shadow forces that simply hint at an idea, but never force it upon the population.
But the population seems, to always take hold. This is the power of manipulation, this is the power of suggestion.
This is the power of subliminal messaging in which we all digest in any media we partake in.
How long until the "recommendations" become law.

"Some may call him the Devil, others may call him god.

I doubt devils and gods exists, but OK. "

Your lack of faith disturbs me.

"But what if that advisory was us ourselves?

Or the hallucination of an acid trip?"

Just the hallucination?
So you mean to tell me you don't associate yourself with a certain brand, have a favorite soda, have a song that
"describes" you personally? Everything you own you feel as if it describes you, as if that is a representation of you.
How much of yourself do you truly believe you are in control of?
Maybe not you per say, but the mass population. You hear the horrible music everyone listens to these days.
You see the garbage people melt their intelligence with on T.V.
We are all brought up to believe in a brand, to brand ourselves. But on a purely subconscious level.
So, if you knew anything of the Id, the Ego and the Super Ego you would know that the subconscious reigns from on high, and only gives your conscious minds suggestions. Since our minds are not trained to recognize subconscious engineering, our subconscious is much easier to program, therefore our subconscious easily programs our conscious.

"What if we are all supposed to work as one?

Then someone other than John Lennon would have told us."

Sorry but every major religion shares that exact same idea.

"Imagine a world where no one disagrees

That would be terrible.

We'd probably be wrong on a good many things but no one would challenge anyone since we'd all agree. We'd literally never progress. This would be literally the worst example of herd mentallity and herd morality possible. The herd is blinded by its faith in the above. Equality and utopia are equally blinding. Any false comforts and mind dulling efforts to overcome loneliness and avoid facing reality reduces man to the stupidity and complacency of the herd. "No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse." The herd animal doesn't think. It blindly follows the rest of the animals."

Congratulations, you have just single-handedly described our entire population!
Haven't you noticed that if you even whisper an opinion that is not in the liberal popular interest, that you are massacred on the spot? In our society, you are no longer able to disagree. You are no longer able to have your own opinion, if you are not a sheep following the herd you are blacklisted and everyone decides you are a sexist, homophobic, racist biggot, even if you aren't any of those things at all. We are headed towards a world that never disagrees. IE; dictatorship.

"Everyone striving to make the world better for their fellow man...Socialist utopia...A world where no one is offended...

I'll take the side of sovereign individuality. The primary force in nature is the will to power. The will to power with natural selection has thrust beast to man and it will continue to push man forward. Man is the link between the beast and the overman. Man is something to be overcome. If man has a purpose, it is to go extinct, so a new 'overman' can inhabit earth. The overman will be a supreme individualist. "Though shalt" will become the overman's "I will!" The last man will question love, beauty, creation, and longing. The last man will say 'one loves his neighbor so as to keep himself warm'. Man is lost to the world. The overman will conquor it.

The will to power is how man pushes forward. You say strive to make the world better for your fellow man. Altruism necessarily depletes one's own store of power. The weak are destined to perish, so man can continually grow stronger. Man is divided between the inferior and superior. Stifling this distinction breeds mediocrity. Diminishing oneself for the sake of the inferior stifles man's push forward. Greatness becomes even less rare. "He who does not obey himself, will be commanded. This is the nature of living things"

The prevalent classes of society are the slave class and the master class. It is not the duty of others to help those of the slave class reach the master class. Only those fit enough make the transition. Those unfit to be in the master class decend into the slave class. Some are content to be in the slave class. They are necessarily inferior for they have little will to power. The herd denies its will and thus contributes to the ruin of society. Values are personal not societal. Man is inherently selfish and should embrace his nature. Selflessness destroys greatness. Man must be able to reach the full height of his capacity. Herd morality, equality, and selflessness smothers our drive as individuals.

"Man" = men and women by the way.

What my opponent wants is a blind hope, impossible, ruinous to man, a herd mentality, and destroys every bit of greatness and the capacity to progress in man. It ignores man's fundemental nature and the fundemental force of nature--the will to power."

My friend you couldn't have misunderstood me more.
And not only did you misunderstand me, you didn't even make an argument on what the debate was about!
Good, and Evil.
Which I should have respectfully said, Right or Wrong to make it more clear.

The sad fact of the matter is, is that people (in mass amounts) are nothing but common sheep.
They only believe and support what they think should happen, whatever sounds best to them.
Facts and opinions, real world issues don't matter to the every day civilian.
They want their Breaking Bad, a friendly face to tell them every things okay, head to the mall for your next shopping experience and everything will be okay. Give us all your information, we'll keep you safe.
Remember, opinions and thoughts are bad!
And the modern day sheep accepts.

What the debate was about, was what if someone came along.
Someone who was in the spot light, someone very important or highly looked up to.
Came out and gave everyone the finger.
He called everyone and everything on their BS, and never apologized for it.
Someone who was labeled as the bad guy.
The Advisory, the conflict.
You could compare him to the Devil, who slithers into the garden of Eden, where everything is calm and perfect and every things all happy fluffy BS, and offers the people there the fruit of knowledge.
In other words, this guys shows up just to make everyone mad, in hopes of waking them up from their robotic subconscious slumber. So, on the larger scale of things, would this individual be a Bad guy? And Evil person?
Every sheep who doesn't like to think believes he is, they don't agree with him, he is false and therefor he is unhealthy to their ways of thinking. Even if their way of thinking is actually, wrong.
But who is to say its wrong? What if its right?
The point is, there is no Right or Wrong.
Right and Wrong have changed throughout time.
A hundred years ago having sex with a fourteen year old was perfectly normal, it was expected.
Now it lands you in prison.
Right and Wrong, Morals, are all programmed inside of us.
So, is it fair to say that his Advisory, the bad guy, is actually the missunderstood hero in all of this?
This was my question.
This was my debate.
If all of these blind walking sheep are suddenly woken up, it will be total chaos.
Total anarchy, in other words a brand new BREED of man, as you were quoting from our German friend.
Would the world survive with these new "thinking" totally aware individuals?
Or is the only hope for humanity as we know it, a mass mental slave society.
With the faceless leaders in charge.
That, is the debate.
phantom

Pro

This debate has no resolution and no clear meaning as to what's being debated. I'm Pro but I really don't know what I'm Pro for, so I think it apt to go against standard practice and say that Con has the burden of proof for this debate--it would be improper to make a confusing debate with no resolution and an ambiguous topic and put the BoP on the one who accepted. I still don't know exactly what this debate is about, but I'll answer Con's claims as he makes them.

Con states my lack of faith in believing in gods and devils disturbs him. If Con wishes to provide evidence for gods and devils, I invite him to do so. I also don't really see what gods and devils have to do with anything this debate.

Con believes we are supposed to all work as one. Firstly, I take issue with "supposed to". That seems to imply some preordered purpose to us which I have yet to percieve exists. All Con says is that every major religion has that exact same idea. This is both irrelevant and clearly false. Most religions are exclusive. Only those of that faith are included. The God of the Bible ordered many wars, battles, and plagues. He gives no endorsement of peaceful unity.

Con says that society today is as I depicted his utopia--blind sheep following the herd--and does nothing to refute my argument that his utopia of univeral agreement is detrimental. If Con critisizes the herd mentality today, why would everyone agreeing on everything be good in Con's imagined world? Disagreement is a necesssary part of progress. We can't survive without it.

Con says I didn't make a proper argument about what the debate was about. As stated Con never says what the debate is about exactly, but I think my response was apt anyway. All he says is that the debate is about "good and evil" or "right and wrong", which is ambiguous itself.

Con seems to think every person must have an intellectual interest in life. I find this an oppressive view. Persons are free to choose how they want to live. If Breaking Bad or shopping is their meaning in life, so be it. Con has no right to condemn their individual persuit of happiness. What is wrong is when such people pretend their religion or their ideology is unquestionable, but only some do that.

Moreover, Con just takes it for granted that society is univerally wrong, blind, and uninterested in the truth. He also assumes that if they were woken up to the truth, they would condemn the awaker as evil. This is not necessarily true. Pleanty of people fit this descrpition but there's no reason to be pessimistic about everyone. Con is ambiguous with his notion of right and wrong. Part of the time he uses it in the factual sense and other times in the moral sense. If there's no factual right and wrong, then the statement that there isn't is self-refuting and the whole hyopthetical awakener is flawed. Con never explains how there's no moral right and wrong. He makes many unconected leaps in his argument. He never gets to why his hypothetical even should lead us to disregard right and wrong. He does make an argument about morals evolving, but this is unsatisfactory, for morals can be relative to time and place and not all moral beliefs change over time. Right and wrong don't need to be absolute and unchanging in order to exist. Our idea of the appropriate age for sex changes as society changes. It would be wrong now to have sex with a 14 year old only because of the way society is and thinks today. But in the past it would be perfectly fine. Con also makes many value statements and such directly contradicts his claim that right and wrong don't exist. Clearly we can delineate a good life from a bad life. Con seems to say this state of affairs is a bad state. Con clearly values the "advisor" more than the dictator. Moreover, he claims his "advisor" is a hero. So Con himself continually implies the existence of right and wrong.


PS. This was extremely rushed.

Debate Round No. 2
EvilFuckinLee

Con

The lack of faith disturbs me was a Star Wars quote lol

What I was asking, and I guess I was just unclear.
Is if good and evil, right and wrong, are they true things that play actual roles in the lives of humanity.
Or is it just another manipulation tactic in which the whole world is under control.
"If consequences dictate my course of action it doesn't matter whats right, its only wrong if you get caught."
We all do things that aren't exactly "right", but does that make us evil?
Can Evil be used for good?
That's what I was asking. I should have worded my argument better.
phantom

Pro

Con spends the round clarifying the debate, but does not respond to my analysis last round. Con never contends that the burden of proof should rest on him due to the ambiguous nature of this topic. I responded to all of Con's claims, so I think it follows that my burden is sufficiently accomplished. Con's, however, is not.

Points of contention:

1. That we're all supposed to work as one
I countered this with an argument for individuality, which Con does not respond to really. I also questioned the teleological nature of this premise, but Con does not defend it.

2. Everyone agreeing on everything
Here Con contradicts himself. He invisions a society where no one disagrees about anything. I counter that this would be simply a herd mentality and that disagreement is necessary for progress. Instead of defending his original point, Con instead critisizes the herd mentality as well and states that this is how society currently is. This directly conflicts with his original statements.

3. Society
The way Con depicts society is uncalled for. He portrays society as universally wrong about life, blind, and uninterested in the truth. At best this is an overgeneralization.

4. Good and evil, or right and and wrong
Con equivocates between the factual and normative notions of right and wrong, making his case discontinuous. Moreover, Con continually contradicts himself by assuming values at times and denying them at others. He never explains why his hypothetical should lead us to disregard the notions of right and wrong, nor why its plausible to begin with. The only clear argument he makes is that morals are relativistic, but this does not prove that right and wrong do not exist 1) because right and wrong can still exist in a relativistic framework 2) he only portrays the way society changes its views which is only encompising of some moral views, such as the appropriate age to have sex, and does not itself mean morals do not exist. Moreover, I argued that we can cleary delineate the good life from the bad one, but Con does not respond. If "the advisor" is a hero and dictatorship inherently bad, Con is imposing right and wrong while at the same time trying to rids us of it. Con's question "can evil be used for good?" is itself indicative that good and evils exist.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
EvilFuckinLeephantomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con drops all arguments in his final round.