The Instigator
Zephani0852
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Luharis
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

There's No Such Thing as a "Good Person"

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 3 votes the winner is...
Luharis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,314 times Debate No: 73260
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Zephani0852

Pro

There's no such thing as a "good person."
Luharis

Con

To make the assumption that there is no such thing as a good person, would automatically assume, by logical deduction, that there is no such thing as a "bad person". This is because, if you had a "good person", it would be in reference, to a "bad person". By declaring There's no such thing as a "good person.", it would be no leap of logic to apply this statement and equate Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa, because neither would be considered a good person, it would make it impossible to say that one of them is a "bad person". As we know, Mother Theresa was a better person, than Adolf Hitler, we can logically deduce, that Mother Theresa is a better person, and therefore, a good person.
Debate Round No. 1
Zephani0852

Pro

First off, I wanted to say that at first I did not say anything about "bad people"--I just stated there was no such thing as a "good person." Any definition of the term "bad people" came from your own terms my opponent. That being said, let me continue.
Secondly, I will define what I mean by "good person." When we hear the term "good person" (or "bad person"), we always associate that term with their deeds. When someone was good to the poor (Mother Teresa) or someone died to save us from our sins (Jesus), we always as humans explain someone's standing before us (or God) by their works that they have done. Outside of that, the Funk & Wagnall's dictionary describes the word "good" as "morally excellent." No person in my mind attains that. Jesus clarifies what our standard of good should be based on God: "Why do you call Me good? There is no one good but One, that is, God" (Mark 10:18). So God attains our idea of "good" by being God, not by any other person.
However, I did not say, "no one is righteous." This serves my third point. The Bible states that there is there is no one righteous, no, not one (b/c) there is no one who seeks after God (Romans 3:10-1). So righteousness comes from seeking after God. The Bible is even more clear when it says that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, we will be saved (Romans 10:9). So it's not just seeking after God that causes us to be righteous, but also believing that He died on our behalf so that we would be saved from sin through Him.
What is sin? That leads me to my fourth point. Sin is what separates you as an individual from God. It's what causes us to do "bad things"--hence no person apart from God can be "righteous" or "good" (if you prefer). Because we are born with it, there's no way apart from Christ to separate us from the daily sin our lives. Hence because of sin, Adolf Hitler was able to do all those "bad" things. I'm not going to say that he was good anymore than I'm going to say that Mother Teresa was good because of their works. Unless they were saved by Christ, all their own goodness was "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6) before God. So I return to my first statement--there is no such thing as a "good person", at least before God.
Luharis

Con

Thank you pro!

I must say, almost anytime i debate upon philosophic matters, I'm outflanked by a religious argument, but this time, i feel that this argument is easily voided. In the first round I created a definition of bad based upon what we know is good, it is simply an antonym of good.

Now on the religious matter. While pro has brought up many specific texts from the bible, the affirmation failed to take note on the diverse set of faiths around the world. Take for example the old Pastament delivered down by his noodly appendage. I as a Pastafarian know that as long as i am not a jerk, and i take my pasta with joy, then i am good, and shall earn a place in the heavenly lands firmament along side the heavenly beer factory. I now may use the logical device, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, which states, anything that can not be settled by experiment, is not worthy for debate. Now as it is impossible to prove with experiment which of faiths is true faith, if either of them even are, would leave with no choice but to eject any religious argument as we cannot progress debate any further until we do.

In addition to what i just said, i'd like to take pro's closing statement, " there is no such thing as a "good person", at least before God." That may or not be true, but that is not the intent of our debate, we are debating over whether or not good people exist, without regards to theological matters. Therefore with utilitarianism we can find that to be a good person, we must simply do more beneficial things compared to our detrimental things.

Sources:
The holy books The Loose Cannon, and The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, dutifully transcribed by Bobby Henderson, pesto be upon him.
Debate Round No. 2
Zephani0852

Pro

Zephani0852 forfeited this round.
Luharis

Con

In order to allow for a fair debate, i shall waive my right to debate for this round. I would like to thank the pro for this wonderful debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Luharis 2 years ago
Luharis
@Talonflamestar That's awfully nice of you, but there's still 2 rounds left before voting
Posted by Talonflamestar 2 years ago
Talonflamestar
I vote luharis
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
Con, I understand the point you were making, but Mother Theresa isn't exactly the best person either. She did some messed up things.
Posted by TheMajesticDudette 2 years ago
TheMajesticDudette
If there were no good people, then there would be no bad people.

Are you saying that people who torture others aren't bad people? Are you saying that people who go out of their way to care for people aren't good people? That's very illogical.

People do have their own unique personalities, though...

Also, please show proof of your debate.
Posted by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
Can't wait to see what Pro defines "good people" as.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Zephani0852LuharisTied
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: PROs points are moot because they don't prove god exists in the first place.
Vote Placed by EAT_IT_SUKA 2 years ago
EAT_IT_SUKA
Zephani0852LuharisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: PRO forfeited and CON didn't, therefore, points are awarded to CON for better conduct. Spelling and Grammar: Spelling and grammar seem to be fine on both sides, thus, no points are awarded to PRO nor CON for better spelling and grammar. Arguments: CON successfully refuted PRO's arguments and had uncontested arguments, thus points are awarded to CON for more convincing arguments. Sources and Citations: Both sides listed sources and they were all equally reliable, therefore, points are not awarded to PRO nor CON for more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Zephani0852LuharisTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.