The Instigator
brittcb4
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
rogue
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

People are born good

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,891 times Debate No: 14789
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

brittcb4

Con

People are not born good. Babies are born with a clean slate and as they grow they become good or bad.
rogue

Pro

First I will request that Con define the word "good" since I believe that it is important to this debate. Since this is not defined I will not yet post my argument supporting the resolution.

"Babies are born with a clean slate"- This is not true. Babies already have genetic personality characteristics that are determined by their genes. Their genes can cause them to be things like sociopaths and psychopaths who have no moral compass. These disorders can cause them to have many traits people consider "bad", like being uncaring or cold to others.
Debate Round No. 1
brittcb4

Con

I agree that we need to define good. A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. If you are arguing that people are born good, how do you define good? Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa.

How can people be born good if they do not have the ability to know what good is? What does good to mean to you? How do you know that people are born good if you do not know most people? What are your arguments and do you have evident to support your arguments?

John Locke a famous philosopher who formulated the concept of tabula rasa. We are born neutral as we do not know what is right or wrong. Their environments shape who they are, good, bad, evil. It is society who can corrupt mankind or not. There is no evidence of innate knowledge, therefore how could people be born good if they do not know what it is. People are simply born. Good and evil are sociological concepts presented to individuals later in life when they can comprehend them. That is when the choices occur
rogue

Pro

"A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic."- So this is is definition we are using?

"Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa."- I agree, and I think a lot parents would approve of their newborn child, making the parents view the child as "good" by definition. Since what you believe is good subjective, and parents think their newborn child is "good", their child must be "good", proving some people are born good.

I do not disagree with John Locke, but since you cannot disprove opinions, and some parents view their child as good, some people are born good.
Debate Round No. 2
brittcb4

Con

Okay, the definition i posted is an example, but is there a definition you prefer? Also, do you have any evidence to support your argument because you have not given me any? Any concrete proof of people being born good?
rogue

Pro

"A common definition of good is the most general term of approval, both moral and non-moral, whether intrinsic or extrinsic."

"Being good is subjective, what you believe is good may be bad for me vise versa."- Con has accepted that being good is subjective. If something is subjective, then people give the subject meaning and value. This means that, using this definition above, if I can find any example of a parent approving of their child at birth, the resolution is supported. Since the resolution does not specify that I must prove that "all people are born good", as long as I can prove that "some people are born good", I have supported the resolution.

Here is an example of a parent approving of a child at birth: http://www.cbsnews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
brittcb4

Con

brittcb4 forfeited this round.
rogue

Pro

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited this round I will not say any more.
Debate Round No. 4
brittcb4

Con

If I were to say hypothetically that being good is not subjective, what would your argument be?
rogue

Pro

I would say that babies posess many of the traits commonly associated with being good, like purity.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 5 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Have you had a child or a childhood? Kids are jerks.
Posted by brittcb4 5 years ago
brittcb4
I understand, i can argue that people are not born good, you have the option to say they are born good, evil, etc.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Free them to argue that people are born evil. The problem is that they can defeat your argument and still be in violation of the resolution. If they prove that people are born evil, they prove you wrong but still don't prove the resolution.
Posted by brittcb4 5 years ago
brittcb4
Okay, so what should I do to give my opponent room to act the opposite of this?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I understand your argument... and it TECHNICALLY fits the resolution. However, it doesn't leave room for your opponent to actually argue the opposite of what you said.
Posted by brittcb4 5 years ago
brittcb4
To be more clear you are arguing that people are born good and I am saying they are not born good. I am saying that as they grow they become good or bad, (evil). Because how does a baby know what is good and you are arguing that is inherent in them..
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Your opening argument is a bit of a trick question. You are arguing that people are born neutral, which is true that they are not born good (if you are correct). However, you don't leave your opponent the freedom to completely argue the opposite of your contention... since if they argue that people are born evil (rather than neutral) they are violating the resolution... but still defeating your argument.
Posted by brittcb4 5 years ago
brittcb4
we can make another debate if you would like?
Posted by nonentity 5 years ago
nonentity
I agree with the con side of your titled resolution but disagree with your first round. Can I still take this?
No votes have been placed for this debate.