The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Cold-Mind
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,226 times Debate No: 59519
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

lannan13

Pro

I'd like to thank Cold-Mind ahead of time for accepting this debate.

Rules
My opponent will begin his argument round 1
Round 2 is arguments and rebuttles
Round 3 is rebuttles and Con's conclusion.
Round 4 is Rebuttle and conclusion by Pro.
Con will end round 4 by stating, "No argument as agreed upon."
No swearing
No Semantics
Burden of Proof is equally shared

Violations of these rules will result in a forfeiture of that person.


The definition of selfish that we had agreed upon.

selfish-to sattisfy one's self/personal needs or feelings.

human-of or pertaining to the social aspect of people (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

acts- to do something; exert energy or force; be employed oroperative: (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Cold-Mind

Con

1) If I had a choice - Either I die instantly, or all other humans die instantly - I would choose me. This is not selfish.

As for explanation - I would anyway die at some point. Human race without me has a chance to survive by evolution (trough technology)

Since only things that decide human behavior are emotions and mind, and if something is done to satisfy emotions, it is by this definition selfish; Only things that I can argue for are decision made from reason. Here is one more case.

If Ghostryder (rapper) had a choice to either
1) lose 5000 euros
2) steal 5 euros from innocent person (without ability to atone), knowing that he would get away with it, he would choose the first option, because stealing is, in his opinion immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Opponent's contentions

Subpoint 1: The world or I

My opponent says here that he would chose to save the world instead of himself, but this is indeed selfish. Why? For this we apply his own thoughts of he can die instantly or the world can die instantly. It's simple, because he himself doesn't want to be alone in the world and he intern would go insane and possibly commit suicide. Then there's the possibility of Con wanting to be a hero. If he dies for all of humanity he knows that he will go down as a hero and go throughout history being known as the guy who saved the human race from total destruction. Both of these points are selfish. He A) doesn't want to be alone and B) wants to be a hero. Con may state that that may not be his intention of being a hero, but it will happen regardless if he wants to admit it or not.

Subpoint 2: Rapper

He would not steal, because though he might not get caught in reality he knows that he would be caught dead read in the afterlife. (not trying to start a religious debate) A few of his songs (Lord's Prayer) and his bio suggests that he is religious to a degree. He knows that stealing is immoral, but also knows that it is a mortal sin. (http://www.dailycatholic.org...) He also knows that stealing small will lead to more stealing, but of greater value. He value's himself and does not want to spend an eternity suffering in Hell. Thus he would be willing to lose 5000 Euros to have a chance at getting into heaven vs. automatically going to hell.

Contention 2: Humans are animalistic

Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.

"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."

Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

“one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death” (De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory).

We can see here above that simply we go to avoid death and we all know that one of the leading fears is death. Why do we fear death? What will happen to our families when we die? How will I be remembered? Could I have done better? What's next? Am I going to heaven or hell? These are all questions that we ponder when it comes to the afterlife. We simply fear the unknown.
Cold-Mind

Con

1) My opponent said that me not wanting to be alone or me wanting to be a hero could possibly be the case.
I was not saying that it could possibly be, I said it is the case that my reason is " I would anyway die at some point. Human race without me has a chance to survive by evolution (trough technology)"
I do have great knowledge of myself, and I am qualified enough to say what the situation is.

2) The reason why I picked Ghostryder, rather than some other Christian is because he said he believes everyone will be resurrected. I meant to post a link to video where he says so, but it appears to be deleted.
Proof for video being deleted: http://postimg.org... (comment bellow).

Freud is Jew from Germany who lived during the Third Reich. Of course he is going to hate people.

I thank my opponent for making another example of how people are not always selfish: "What will happen to our families when we die?"

Since it is the case with me, I am guessing that it is with many other people as well.
- My ego is not limited to my body. I regard myself as part of the human race, and part of the universe. That is why I care about them even when my body or story of my body does not exist within them.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1: Opponent's Contentions

Subpoint 1: The world or I

Here we can apply the theories of Freud to Con's argument. If Con chooses to kill himself and let the world live he is doing so so that the human race may continue, because he wants this race's genes to go on and further itself. Con is doing this, as he admitted last round, is that he does not have a great amount of knowledge (no I'm not insulting Con). From here we can see that due to the lack of knowledge he cannot rebuild humanity from himself, thus making him pick the second option to save humankind. Here he is satisfying his own self by knowing that when he is gone humanity will go on and the world will be in peace and harmony. He will also be honored as a hero giving him an ego boost and a great motive to do so. Simply he also doesn't want to be alone, because of the fear of the unknown and the fact that Con will go inane and his mental state will crumble. Regardless which of these it is they are all selfish points.

Subpoint 2: Ghostryder

The post bellow states that he had 4 videos. There is no proof that that happened. Sorry, but that's like me giving you a 404 error link and make some absurd claim and say well it was there when I saw it.

But let's take a second here and say that he does believe that all will be resurrected. He must believe in some rewards system in heaven. Like if you commit mortal sins then you get less heaven than a normal person or such. Thus showing that he once again is being selfish, because he wants a greater reward in the afterlife, but without that video we cannot really tell. (If con could please find the video maybe on youtube or anyother streaming website or just him quoting it that would be fine)

Contention 2: Humans are animalistic

My opponent tries to discredit Freud, because he is a Jew living in Germany, but this is highly false. Why you may ask? Freud has had a record for working in the field before the NAZI take over of Germany in 1933 when he actually won an award for his works in 1930. Though Freud's experiences are different his philosophical theories and opinions still apply. So Please extend my argument here.

My opponent completely dropped my point on Hobbes so please extend that point.

The quote I offered does not actually work in Con's favor. Why? Simple due to the fact that still people don't want to die, because of fear of the unknown. As I defined in the Opening round Selfish accounts for one's feelings and not doing something, because of fear falls under that category.

My opponent drops my De Cive argument so also extend that across the board.

My opponent offers up symbolism for his ego, but that can also be verse in the same way. For example a rattle snake bits your hand you must cut off your hand to save the body. (I know there are other ways, but this is just an example) Cutting off your hand would save the body (the human race). You would thus feel good, because you are saving the genes of the race and furthering it at a minimal cost vs. letting the entire body die. You don't want the body to die, because then you would go as well. (hence what con said in subpoint 1) The same selfish nature still applies here.
Cold-Mind

Con

"Con is doing this, as he admitted last round, is that he does not have a great amount of knowledge (no I'm not insulting Con)." doesn't make any sense, either grammatically or in context.

Since it could be the case that Ghostryder wants a greater reward in afterlife, and I can't discredit that possibility, this argument is rebutted.

Mein Kampf was published in 1925. Book that was celebrated by masses and explicitly says Jews (and Marxism)are enemy number one. Freud did a great work, but his work is biased by his bad life experiences.

Thomas Hobbes part contains no argument, it is only bunch of quoted premises.

De Cive part - No argument. Only premise.

fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.
( https://www.google.me... )

I challenge my opponent's premise "people don't want to die, because of fear of the unknown" by asking for proof.
There are many reasons why human would not want to die, fear of the unknown is only one of them.

Here we have some gibberish. What symbolism? What can be verse in the same way?

My opponent's analogy is false because in his example we are talking only about my body. This make the key difference.
As selfish is defined as "to satisfy one's self/personal needs or feelings.", in my opponent's example it is selfish, but in mine it is not, since it extends beyond personal.

Despite the fact that I care about thing other than myself, my sense of self does not extend my actual self, which is only my body.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

I'm going to appologize ahead of time as my bolding doesn't seem to be working on my kendel.

Contention 1: Opponent's Contentions

Subpoint 1: The world or I

What I was refurring to by my attack on my opponent's knowledge is that he's not a scientist and cannot clone himself to extend human life. He knows that he himself cannot do it so he chooses to kill himself. My opponent has dropped the rest of the contention so it prooves that he is selfish by choosing the world for the three reasons that I had brought up:
1. He would go insane and kill himself.
2. He will be remembered as a hero
3. He is protecting the gene pool.

Subpoint 2: Rapper

My opponent concedes on this point, so extend it across the board.

Contention 2: Humans are animals

My opponent continues to try to discredit Freud, but he has works in his field dating as early as 1886 ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) The argument still stands as my opponent hasn't tried to refute this point, but only try to discredit the author of these works. So please extend this point across the board.

Hobbes and De Cive may both only be premises, but the they are still valid arguments. My opponent has never made an attempt to refute either so please extend these arguments.

My opponent says that people do not fear death because of the unknown, but that is false. One of the branches of thantaphobia (fear of death) is fear of the unknown and not knowing what comes next. ( http://phobias.about.com...)

My opponent says my anology is false, but yet it still applies to the definition that I have given as my opponent has stated. My opponent is wrong as it does apply to my opponent's as well. You see that his ego extends and that is why he cares the way he does, but it still applies as an ego is ones's feelings and persona which still fit under the definition.

In conclusion, we can see that my opponent has dropped most of his and my own points. We can see at the end of the debate that all acts under it's guildedness they are all selfish.

Thank you and please vote Pro.
Cold-Mind

Con

No argument as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
My majesty is thankful for the given advice.
Posted by gymnastseal 3 years ago
gymnastseal
Does this reming anyone else of the F.R.I.E.N.D.S episode where Phoebe attempts to commit a selfless act only to have Joey determine that in each act she was actually getting some pleasure from everything?

I actually agree that subconsciously most people are selfish. And thats not a bad thing. Our primitive instinct just naturally wants us to protect ourselves. On the other hand I would not go so far to say that ALL people are selfish in a debate because absolutes open up a door to lose. This is simply because there is no doubt ONE person out there who is selfless.

In addition, MR. Con, you (much like Mr. Pro) have a very strong argument but if I may suggest in the future not using yourself as an example. Since most people on this website do not know you, by stating yourself as an example your argument seems weak. It also seems kind of contrived and slightly, well, annoying. In general audience's respond more to self-deprecating then to "tooting your own horn". You may be selfless but in order to win over voters that would be my recommendation <3 But still, great job!

Just my humble opinion,
XOXOXO
Posted by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
In my opinion, this should have been the easiest debate to win...

-an eye twitch is an action, that is an annoying involuntary spasm.
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
@AlexanderOc Of course there is a reason for everything that humans do. That does not in any way prove humans are selfish. Wanting does not always come from emotions. Sometimes it comes from pure reason.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
It's selfish because thet're doing it because they want the other person to live. Notice the WANT. They are acting on their own desires and are therefore being selfish.
Posted by Cassie412 3 years ago
Cassie412
What if someone sacrifices themselves for another person? How is that selfish?
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Con's* first argument
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Another refutation of Pro's first argument is that he wants has the natural instinct to protect his species. He is only trying to satisfy this instinct.
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Why's that?
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
pro can't possibly win this thing.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ricksterpr0 3 years ago
ricksterpr0
lannan13Cold-MindTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Much more convincing arguments. Con made little attempts to rebuttal and was defeated
Vote Placed by leonitus2464 3 years ago
leonitus2464
lannan13Cold-MindTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con had better logical reasoning for his conclusion.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
lannan13Cold-MindTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro defeated all of con's attempt to even show one human act selfless
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
lannan13Cold-MindTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was unsuccessful is proving at least ONE human act is Not selfish.