The Instigator
markd315
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Ayyuba
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Good and evil exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
markd315
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 40355
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

markd315

Con

Alright friends, today I'm debating against the existence of "good" and "evil".

Here are my opening conjectures and thoughts. Feel free to join in the comments below:

I find morality as an idea to be subjective. I propose that people do have their own concepts of right and wrong. This is evidenced by there being discrepancies between what was "okay" in the past, and what is "okay" now. 30 years ago it was "right" to slap girls. It was "wrong" for them to wear anything that reveals basically anything. In fact, that's still true in some parts of the world today. People were shunned and cut off from society for nothing more than being homosexual. Now today, people who hate homosexuals are the "evil" ones.

Because you see, friends, noone is good and evil. In the words of Lemony Snicket: "People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict."

Everyone is a product of 2 things, their genetics and their environment. Me and Yang Zhao say it ALL THE TIME. Hitler was NOT a bad person. There ARE no bad people. There are just people who may have mental disorders, were abused in their life, etc. Things like that change people. Hitler did what he did because he was blinded by power, in an extremely passionate nationalist setting, and possibly because he had a pre-existing tendency for genocide.

Go ahead. Think about it. Try to come up with some quality of a person that cannot be explained by either a persons genetic makeup or their past/present situation. You can't.

Now, prove that murder is evil. Go on.

Yep. Come up with evidence to the contrary. Sure, by today's standards and by my own, it is morally wrong. But as I said earlier, people have different concepts of right and wrong. There is no internal moral compass. Anyone who commits murder does so as a result of their upbringing and/or their genetics. Therefore, doing so does not make them an evil person.

I think that everyone is capable of murder, torture, and other things that are typically considered "evil". It's all about getting the variables right. To substantiate this, I reference the Stanley Milgram experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). In this experiment, participants were put under stressful conditions and asked to administer fatal shocks to another human. Most complied. It's all about the circumstances.

As a corollary of what I've stated above, I really believe we're in serious need of prison reform. Punishing people does nothing to address the underlying problems, which can often be remedied with counseling and drugs. I think it's terrible that we're punishing and even killing people just because they have different concepts of right and wrong from the norm, or because they're too stupid or abused to understand the implications. Now, explain to me how that's different than lynching people based on race, sexual orientation, religion and so on.

To close my opening statements (?) I'd like to ask you to A: Keep religion out of it unless you are going to back it with actual logic and/or scientific evidence and reasoning. It simply has no place here. And B: Refrain from downright flaming. Cussing is okay, but avoid Ad Hominem please. Y'all can argue from both sides, and even if you feel one way; also try to think of evidence to the contrary and possibly refute it, or stick with that side if we have no one backing it. It's good practice.
Ayyuba

Pro

Good defined: http://www.merriam-webster.com... . To be good means to be something positive. Violence and bigotry are negative because they bring harm and violate people natural rights. Just because something is widely accepted does not make it good.
Bad defined: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Bad means poor in quality, not sound, negative. Hate is negative, terrorism is negative, they exist.
I am sorry for not having a fancy speech. Let me know if you want clarification.
Debate Round No. 1
markd315

Con

The argument is not whether or not good and bad exist, but good and evil.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I am conjecturing that innate good and evil do not exist. Since morality is subjective, and evil is "morally bad", evil cannot exist.

This is simply in response to his citation of dictionary definitions. I am aware that the pro has retired from the argument. I too, am willing to let it die.
Ayyuba

Pro

Ayyuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
markd315

Con

markd315 forfeited this round.
Ayyuba

Pro

Ayyuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
markd315

Con

markd315 forfeited this round.
Ayyuba

Pro

Ayyuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
markd315

Con

markd315 forfeited this round.
Ayyuba

Pro

Ayyuba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ayyuba 3 years ago
Ayyuba
you too, friend. :)
Posted by markd315 3 years ago
markd315
I accept the concession. Have a good day, friend.
Posted by Ayyuba 3 years ago
Ayyuba
Please vote for the con. I am not able to back my arguments up. Big mistake.
Posted by Ayyuba 3 years ago
Ayyuba
My apologies. I am so sorry. I concede.
Posted by markd315 3 years ago
markd315
I am not the pro... Please actually read the post.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
your post makes no sense you are trying to prove that good and evil exist? Yet you go into situational ethics, you use murder and ask someong to prove evil. That is your job as the pro is it not?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
markd315AyyubaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more than Con, and Con had better arguments.