The Instigator
thedude346
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Humans are Wicked by Nature

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,385 times Debate No: 14513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

thedude346

Pro

I wish to start this argument off with my firm belief that humans are, by nature, and always will be, wicked. We are more inclined to greed than benevolence. Those of us with siblings will be mean and nasty to them just for the joy of it. Even when we have more money than we know what to do with, we are reluctant to spend it. Boys' fascination with guns and other toys of destruction. Etcetera. Of course, I know there is good in humans as well. In fact, I believe that is the rule to live by: Even though we are wicked by nature, we should try to be as kind as possible. We'll never succeed, but we'll made the world a better place. Your response?
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for the debate.

My opponent states that humans are wicked. To define wicked: "the practice of being morally wrong in principal or in practice."

However, my opponent states in his next sentence "(humans) are more inclined to greed than benevolence". My opponent fails to realize that you can not judge a book by it's cover. In other words, you can not judge everyone by the majority. There are humans who have been made into saints, holy men, hero(in)s, etc.

My opponent also states that "we" who have siblings WILL be mean and nasty to them for the joy of it. My opponent exaggerates in this. If not, then I ask him to prove it, reasonably, of course.

When we have money, he says, we are reluctant to spend it. There is nothing morally wrong or wicked about saving money, and I fail to see the issue lying therein. Nor do I understand his next point of children playing with toys.

My opponent, with all due respect, has failed to prove why humans are wicked by nature.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 1
thedude346

Pro

Yes, but in human history, the bad things we have done greatly outweigh the good things. True, most people are not evil all the time, and true, those were basic and childish examples, but I have some more. The fact that the human mind has created atrocities like gas, guns, the atomic bomb, all of which have taken countless lives. The massacres at Darfur, the Second World War, and the American genocide of Native Americans. The following passage is from Gulliver's Travels, an ingenious satire written by Jonathan Swift, about the human race. In this scene, the main character is in a land of huge creatures, speaking to its king:

In hopes to ingratiate myself further into his majesty’s favour, I told him of “an invention, discovered between three and four hundred years ago, to make a certain powder, into a heap of which, the smallest spark of fire falling, would kindle the whole in a moment, although it were as big as a mountain, and make it all fly up in the air together, with a noise and agitation greater than thunder. That a proper quantity of this powder rammed into a hollow tube of brass or iron, according to its bigness, would drive a ball of iron or lead, with such violence and speed, as nothing was able to sustain its force. That the largest balls thus discharged, would not only destroy whole ranks of an army at once, but batter the strongest walls to the ground, sink down ships, with a thousand men in each, to the bottom of the sea, and when linked together by a chain, would cut through masts and rigging, divide hundreds of bodies in the middle, and lay all waste before them. That we often put this powder into large hollow balls of iron, and discharged them by an engine into some city we were besieging, which would rip up the pavements, tear the houses to pieces, burst and throw splinters on every side, dashing out the brains of all who came near. That I knew the ingredients very well, which were cheap and common; I understood the manner of compounding them, and could direct his workmen how to make those tubes, of a size proportionable to all other things in his majesty’s kingdom, and the largest need not be above a hundred feet long; twenty or thirty of which tubes, charged with the proper quantity of powder and balls, would batter down the walls of the strongest town in his dominions in a few hours, or destroy the whole metropolis, if ever it should pretend to dispute his absolute commands.” This I humbly offered to his majesty, as a small tribute of acknowledgment, in turn for so many marks that I had received, of his royal favour and protection.

The king was struck with horror at the description I had given of those terrible engines, and the proposal I had made. “He was amazed, how so impotent and grovelling an insect as I” (these were his expressions) “could entertain such inhuman ideas, and in so familiar a manner, as to appear wholly unmoved at all the scenes of blood and desolation which I had painted as the common effects of those destructive machines; whereof,” he said, “some evil genius, enemy to mankind, must have been the first contriver. As for himself, he protested, that although few things delighted him so much as new discoveries in art or in nature, yet he would rather lose half his kingdom, than be privy to such a secret; which he commanded me, as I valued any life, never to mention any more.”

This is just one example of the destructive things the human race has thought up. With all the atrocities, killings, massacres, genocides and weapons in our existence, I believe, not just this, but our continued destruction of the environment as well, may constitute to a statement of the such that in our history, humans have done more good than bad. Indeed, there is an evil part of us deep in our minds. Most people control this side, and occasionally let it loose. But when people in power, people with weapons do this; the results are devastating.

Itsallovernow

Con

Itsallovernow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
thedude346

Pro

I hope my opponent's forfeit of the previous round does not undermine his credibility, as he has made some good points and intelligent arguments. I would like to conclude by saying that looking back, humanity has done some very wicked things. From the millions slain in war to deforestation, overfishing, overhunting and just the nature of some of the things we have thought up, humans are wicked. Think about it, the Bible itself says we are born in sin. We are born into sin, we are inclined to sin, and yet we must try not to. Again, thank you for the debate, and just think, haven't we done more bad than good in this world?
Itsallovernow

Con

Thank you for the debate and the vote of confidence in my credibility.

My opponent must keep in mind that weapons were designed, in part, as a defense mechanism. Most actions, using a large-scale view to better qualify the sample size, were taken for the belief that a country was helping a certain cause. However, it has always been up for debate which is in the right, which is good, etc.

Gunpowder was invented when Chinese chemists were attempting to create the elixir of life, not to find a way to destroy it. I live in the state of West Virginia. Without gunpowder, we would not be able to produce the 70+ percent of energy that gunpowder allows us to access and allow us to be the coal capatial of the country. For my way of life, gunpowder has done me more good than bad. Just because some other nutter finds and alternative use for it does not mean that it is a bad thing, nor that the creators were bad because of his misuse of it.

We can not be grouped as a society because of other's actions. This resolution states the absoluteness of every human's wicked nature, which, with all due respect, my opponent can not possibly prove. Perhaps it should have been reworded to a probablity.

Thank you for the debate, and I wish you good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by thedude346 6 years ago
thedude346
wicked: in this case, it means inclined to pursue their own interests more than to help others, selfish to an extent
Posted by nonentity 6 years ago
nonentity
Can you define what you mean by "wicked"?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
thedude346ItsallovernowTied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
thedude346ItsallovernowTied
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 
Vote Placed by thedude346 6 years ago
thedude346
thedude346ItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:23 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
thedude346ItsallovernowTied
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:34