The Instigator
Tough
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Kevinsan007
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is no such thing as a bad or good person in the moral sense.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Tough
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 78985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Tough

Pro

Three rounds of debating. First round solely for creation (on my part) and acceptance on Con's.

In this debate, "Good" means morally correct and "Bad" means morally incorrect. The moral system at play is not clear as I believe this to be true for all moral systems of ethical reasoning.

My outlook is that good and bad are applicable either to the actions or the motives of the actions of people that themselves are morally neutral and are merely catalysts in the moral equations at play.

Con's outlook is that people themselves can be morally correct or incorrect based on either the actions they do or the motives behind them.

If Con tries to take the approach that the person can have done more good or bad things and is therefore more good than bad or the opposite they are not disproving the resolution as they are agreeing that there is always the possibility of any human to do a bad or good act regardless of how high a proportion of their previous acts or motives were good or bad and this is actually my outlook as Pro.

Please think carefully before accepting as in my eyes it is actually impossible to debate Con in this resolution with my definitions so I'm actually waiting for someone to prove me wrong and am not waiting for someone to accept this pretending they have worked out a way it's wrong only to then cry 'semantic abuse' half way through when they had the entire first round to realize that it was indeed my definitions that made this debate biased to my side since I do want to win.
Kevinsan007

Con

I think that there is someone that can be a "bad" or a "good" person in a moral sense, there are some people (believe it or not) that genuinly think they are bad, and do everything to be "bad" that they can.
Debate Round No. 1
Tough

Pro

What Con was supposed to do in Round One

Accept the debate.

What Con did in Round One

Opened with an argument.

What Con states

Someone can be a good or bad person since come people genuinely think that they are bad or do bad at any given opportunity.

The flaws in Con’s case

1. Con only states that someone can think that they are bad but doesn’t state that they can also think they are good, why Con specifies only that they can think they are bad is left obscure.

2. Con states that some people do bad whenever they can but hasn’t proven how this makes them a bad person. A person who does bad frequently is still fully capable of choosing to do good at any opportunity as well and that potential alone is why they can never be concluded to be bad or good.

3. Con fails to ever explain how someone thinking they are good or bad makes them good or bad rather than mistaken.

My case supporting the resolution

Even if all actions and/or motives or a person were good or bad up to their death the only thing we conclude is that they died before they were able to do something that was the other thing. A person who did all-good in their life never had the opportunity after their death to then do all-bad from that point on and so it could be concluded that the only conclusion that we can ever draw about someone is his/her likelihood to enable good or bad things to happen rather than themselves be good or bad. Thus, if we want a safer bet for someone to help us to be doing the good thing, we would prefer to select someone who in the past seemed to do good more often than bad and the reverse is also true. Nonetheless, the is always the potential of the person to unpleasantly surprising us by either being a hero when we wanted them to do bad or being malicious when we expected them to do good.

My alternate angle of reversed burden of proof

Con has yet to prove that good or bad even exist or that there is even a valid system for distinguishing the two at all. This is necessary for them to win the debate.

Kevinsan007

Con

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Tough

Pro

Easy win proceed. :)
Kevinsan007

Con

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Kevinsan007

Con

Kevinsan007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
@vi_spex

Literally no one claimed morality is a "sense".

Used to indicate a particular interpretation of a statement or situation:

>someone that can be a "bad" or a "good" person in a moral sense,

This is using the definition of "Used to indicate a particular interpretation of a statement or situation".

As an example, "In a sense you make no sense, presumably because you've taken leave of your senses."
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No there is no such thing. It is all about staying alive under the given circumstances. There are inner and outher circumstances. That is why people behave different under the same outher curcumstances.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
morality is not a sense
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
ToughKevinsan007Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Yea. Pro had arguments. Con didn't.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
ToughKevinsan007Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff