The Instigator
Gulam
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
STALIN
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

MOST evil is started by man kinds

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...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 42705
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Gulam

Pro

Rules

1.Have to admit i'm sexy

2. Can refer to any sources but they have to be named or linked

3. Opponent has to start the discussion because I am to lazy too.
STALIN

Con

1. Your sexy.

2. Agreed.

3. OK I will.

Lets begin. I would like to start off by pointing out that Pro does not make his resolution clear. He states that most evil is started by "man kinds". First of all, Pro does not explain what "most" means in this debate. Second, Pro does not say what "man kinds" is. I will assume that this debate translates to "most evil is started by man kind".

Reasons this is untrue:

A) Many people believe that god created people. This means that god created people and made them evil in the process. This shows that god is the one who first started evil[1], not man.

B) Humans are animals. Do we ever ask which animal is the most responsible for evil existing? Are fish more responsible for starting evil than cows are? I am simply showing that this resolution does not make any sense.

C) Different people define evil in different ways. A person may be evil but he may not view himself as evil. Pro presented no definition of evil.

D) My opponent will need to present an example of the evil that humans cause. Otherwise I have nothing else to say.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Gulam

Pro

Firstly I mean by man kind as yard stick. Anything is done or made by man or man him or herself. For example the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and a person robbing a bank both fit the definition that I put forward.
I will subvert your argument in order.

A) The three main religions Jew,Islam and Christianity both agree that god did not make evil but the devil did. The devil then sub-consciously persuades the victim to do sin. God has nothing to do with this.

B) I have never seen a fish or a cow rob a bank or create a planet destroying nuclear device that mimics the sun. In addition animals such as cows and fishes do not have the social abilities to determine right from wrong unless right from wrong is a survival or breeding situation. Only certain animals such as chimps or gorillas have this ability and even though it pales in comparison to what social abilities we have implanted into society and our brains.

C) profoundly immoral and wicked this is what google says. Even if you view evil in different perspectives a human most probably is the center of the evil as I can't see a person isolating himself from every single human being and then has the brain power to define evil

Back to my point all your "corrections" are only a smoke screen to the real question. Most evil is started by man kind. If you gather all the natural problems that effects people's lives negatively physically or emotionally and do the same for man made problems such as starvation. The list of man made caused problems will outnumber the natural problems that man has had no participation.
STALIN

Con

"Most evil is started by man kind. If you gather all the natural problems that effects people's lives negatively physically or emotionally and do the same for man made problems such as starvation."

This is the argument that my opponent gives. He says that man is responsible for most problems in this world. Man is responsible for starvation. Actually many other species starve as well. This is not an example of a man made problem. In addition, my opponent has not shown what is so "evil" about starvation.

"The list of man made caused problems will outnumber the natural problems that man has had no participation."

Pro has not provided any such list. These are empty words.

Conclusion:

My opponent has given examples of problems such as starvation and atomic bombs that were created by man. My opponent says nothing about how these problems are evil. There was actually some good in the atomic bomb since it helped save lives in WWII. An atomic bomb is an example of warfare. Is warfare evil? Well ants fight just as much, if not more, than humans among themselves. Humans, like other species, compete with each other for resources. This does not mean that they cause evil. My opponent did do a good job responding to my arguments but he does not really explain how man causes evil. I don't understand what is so evil in starvation. Anyway, I can not say anything for now. I await more arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Gulam

Pro

"This is the argument that my opponent gives. He says that man is responsible for most problems in this world. Man is responsible for starvation. Actually many other species starve as well. This is not an example of a man made problem. In addition, my opponent has not shown what is so "evil" about starvation". This is the argument Stalin puts forward. Firstly animals do starve. But that is because either they are made to handle long periods of time without food or they chose a poor place to live.

My opponent has given examples of problems such as starvation and atomic bombs that were created by man. My opponent says nothing about how these problems are evil. There was actually some good in the atomic bomb since it helped save lives in WWII. An atomic bomb is an example of warfare. Is warfare evil? Well ants fight just as much, if not more, than humans among themselves. Humans, like other species, compete with each other for resources. This does not mean that they cause evil. My opponent did do a good job responding to my arguments but he does not really explain how man causes evil. I don't understand what is so evil in starvation. Anyway, I can not say anything for now. I await more arguments.

This is what you said. By the way you do not understand that there is enough food in the world to feed all seven billion of us comfortably, obviously this won't be the case in a couple of decades but the point is that we (In MEDC countries) are consuming way more than we need too. The atomic bomb at least in my eye's are evil. Lets list the positives of it.
1. It somehow saved lives of people who were in WWII
2. It further increased our scientific knowledge
Now lets list the negatives
1. We can wipe out the whole entire human race with it.
2. Exposure to an atomic bomb can cause nasty diseases
3. The use of the atomic bomb had rendered thousands dead, injured or dirt poor.
4. The creator of of the atomic bomb said that the atomic bomb is the most evil object humans can produce.

I agree that ants do have fights. But there battles have been motivated for the queens survival that keeps alive the whole colony. But the Japanese didn't bomb pearl harbor just to survive. Stalin didn't start his ruthless dictatorship because he had to survive.
STALIN

Con

"This is the argument Stalin puts forward. Firstly animals do starve. But that is because either they are made to handle long periods of time without food or they chose a poor place to live."

The same thing can be said about humans.

"I agree that ants do have fights. But there battles have been motivated for the queens survival that keeps alive the whole colony. But the Japanese didn't bomb pearl harbor just to survive. Stalin didn't start his ruthless dictatorship because he had to survive."

The Japanese believed that in order for their empire to survive they would need to expand it and take valuable resources from the United States. Stalin believed that in order for the Soviet Union to survive the Capitalist world, he would need to industrialize the Soviet Union and yes, this did include killing millions.

My opponent listed the ways in which the atomic bomb is a positive and negative weapon. So far this is the only good argument that he has made. I will respond to it now.

Pro's first and third points about the negative aspects of the atomic bomb are basically the same. Pro's fourth point on the negative aspects of the atomic bomb does not support his position. It is simply somebody's opinion and although it is a correct opinion, you cannot use it, without even presenting a source, as a valid argument.

However Pro did show how the negative aspects of the atomic weapons and nuclear weapons as a whole overshadow the positive points. Yet this does not prove that humans are the cause of evil unless all of these weapons were actually used. The only times that the atomic bombs have ever been used resulted in saving lives. This is why humans are not the cause of evil. The resources on this earth are.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@urapai: But that cannot be right, for it is the act which is evil, and the absence which is either neutral or good. To murder someone is a real action, to not murder someone is an absence. To rape someone is a real act, to not rape someone is an absence. It is neutral morality which is an absence, not evil.
Posted by urapai 3 years ago
urapai
Stalin, see evil like this: Darkness is not real, for it is but the absence of light. Evil is not real, for it is the absence of God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
GulamSTALINTied
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: I'm not even sure this needs explanation. Pro's argument relied on baseless assertions and easily-knocked down arguments, and Con showed this.