The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Overall, humans are generally worse than they are good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jack.Murray has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2016 Category: People
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 131 times Debate No: 94100
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Overall, humans are definitely worse than they are good. The damage that has been done by humans since throughout the last several thousand years is far greater than any good we have done. The pain we cause each other as well as other species is of a much greater magnitude than the amount of good we have done. For every random act of kindness, humanitarian effort, or charitable work done, there are countless wars, murders, acts of sheer brutality, and continued human ignorance/arrogance that outweigh them. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of kindness are often in response to negative events, which have often been caused by humans as well. For example, the climate change awareness movement is great, but it has been in response to the massive damage humanity has already caused to the environment. Despite the obvious threat this phenomenon poses, many people continue to ignore it. I am confident that others who support the moot will further my points and strengthen the argument that I have presented. Thanks


I accept your challenge since this is a really cool topic. Kudos to you.

I would like to begin by defining the word human in this topic as a healthy human that has been educated, and raised under a normal family, meaning people with mental illnesses, or people who have not properly been educated do not count, as they are not evil, just mentally ill, or misguided.

Now I would like to rebut a statement made by you, you said that "For every random act of kindness, humanitarian effort, or charitable work done, there are countless wars, murders, acts of sheer brutality, and continued human ignorance/arrogance that outweigh them", but there is no way to really measure the amount of good things, or bad things really happening. For every good thing can be a bad thing, but there could be two good things for every bad thing, and so on. It changes, we could one day wake up to a heartwarming story about a man that saved a puppy orphanage, and one day wake up to a mass shooting. It changes, so I believe this point is invalid.

Now to my argument for round one, which is that my view on this debate that there is more good done than bad, we just tend to focus on the bad more. If someone holds the door open for you when you enter a room, it's a nice thing, but would you go around saying "aww, someone held the door open for me" to people? Not very often, usually people tend to forget about these things. If someone shut the door on your face purposely as a joke, or they are just a jerk, that's when you'd usually complain about it. The fact could boil down to nicer acts tend to be forgettable which makes more evil acts leave a bigger mark, and the reason nicer acts are more forgettable are because they happen so often that you tend to forget about them.

The media also influence peoples views on these things heavily, the news likes to cover conflict, as it is simply more interesting than the nice doings of others. Would people rather hear about a terrorist attack, or a man donating a lot of money to charity? I mean, it's heartwarming, but at the end of the day, the news will report something that can actually end up harming others. We see that the news report this, and it makes us forget that there is a lot of good in the world.

There is evil, no doubt, but we forget about how much good there actually is.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting my moot. However, I must unfortunately give this win to you because, upon further contemplation, this subject is much too open to interpretation to accurately debate. How can you compare effect of 1 murder to the effect of saving a life? You cannot, because the analysis of both is much too qualitative. It involves the experiences of everyone involved and you really cannot quantify the brutality of the murder or the gratefulness of the life saved. And, we would have to define morality and get into all of that which would probably spark 5 more debates. So, while I fully maintain my opinion, I concede that my set up of this debate was rushed and not well thought out. I completely agree that it is very interesting, but I cannot see either of us "winning." We perceive things differently, and while I "know" that I am right, you "know" that you are right. I also agree that the media is very sensationalistic, and that many people simply think the world is a bad place because they are only fed doom and gloom. However, my view tends to be that, because of evolution, humans will innately choose more selfish acts in the act of self-preservation, even at the expense of others. Humans are simply not wired to be the moral beings we should all be striving to be. Anyway, sorry about all this and have a good day.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
humans dont make mistakes, humans can not be wrong
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.