The Instigator
SherlockLily7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,635 times Debate No: 9543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

SherlockLily7

Pro

DEVELOPMENT: the process of growth or progress
INTELLEGENCE: capacity and retention of learning, reasoning, and understanding
INHERENT: existing as an inseperable element
ADVANCEMENT: the act of continuance or moving forward, often with a greater result than the original
EVIL: morally wrong or wicked
-Humankind, though its evolutionary increase in brain capacity has continually shown its brutal and violent hostility towards it's fellow man for the sole purpose of personal gain and not of survival
-Take the case of Francisco Pizzaro and the Incan Emporer Atahuallpa, though the members of the Incan Civilization showed no intent of harm, the Spanish proceeded to (in full knowing of their acquired military advantage) needlessly massacre the Incan public, hold their Emporer for Ransom, and loot the area of riches to send home (personal advancement of economic and political capital)
-Animals with obviously less intellegence and brain capacity than Humans, such as... chickens, perhaps, which clearly have limited social organization never engage in Fratricide or random acts of violence. Other such animals kill only for the purposes of survival (obviously a cheif animal concern)
-SURVIVAL: the ability to endure under adverse circumstances
-Greed is never justified and has shown presence more so in the Human Race than in any other member of nature
-GREED: excessive desire, esp. (but not limited to) wealth and posessions
-Various other cases such as the obvious Holocaust, Mafia, and other organizations claiming some clouded form of vigilantism as their justification proceed to end human life for the purposes of lack of tolerance and pleasure respectively
-The knowledge of Nuclear technology has become more a cause for concern of the continuance of humankind rather than it's preservation through energy efficiency
Therefore it has become appallingly obvious in recent times that with the development of intellegence comes the inherent advancement of Evil
(I reserve the rights to clarification and fiat)
Thank You Opponent, I need the Practice!!!!
Danielle

Con

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting this debate. That said, I agree with her proposed definitions with the exception of the word evil, which she has described as being morally wrong or wicked. Throughout this debate, what is and isn't considered moral will be up for discussion at length, I'm sure, given my arguments, and as such I'd like for the voters to keep this assessment in mind as we proceed with the debate. I'll now move right along to refuting the contentions Pro has presented thus far.

1) Humankind, though its evolutionary increase in brain capacity, has continually shown its brutal and violent hostility towards it's fellow man for the sole purpose of personal gain and not of survival.

There are several problems with this argument. First, Pro has failed to demonstrate how violence and hostility has INCREASED over time via the process of evolution. It seems to me that while war seemed imminent and necessary in the past, that greater efforts are being made today than ever before in order to suppress the likelihood of a massive giant attack. Moreover, it would appear as if the technological progression and inception of nuclear missiles - and the threat of nuclear warfare itself - that seems to be keeping people in check. My point here is that in order for this to be a valid claim, Pro will have to provide evolutionary evidence showing how mankind was once more gentle and considerate towards each other, whereas I am arguing that there has always been conflicting ideals and instances of generosity and kindness mixed with selfishness and violence - both of which I attribute to evolution, and neither which I consider inherently good nor evil.

2) Human massacres - such as Pro's Incan example - proves that humanity acts out of selfish interests and not survival.

I disagree. I believe that while humans indeed act selfishly, that this is not necessarily a bad thing (depending on how you define or practice selfishness). Additionally, I believe that even 'evil' and selfish acts are rooted in some type of innate survival instinct. For instance, why did the Spanish proceed to massacre the Incans? Well, why does anyone do anything? Personal gain and advancement, of course. Science not only supports the concept of evolution but of Social Darwinism as well: the concept of Survival of the Fittest applies in almost always scenario. Indeed we have learned that it is not the biggest or the strongest who survive, but rather those who are most adaptable to change. As such, the Spanish have proven to be superior in the sense that their ability to progress mentally and technologically speaking have given them that upper hand to succeed in their natural instinct for survival. So, essentially I am arguing that selfishness = survival.

3) Animals with obviously less intelligence and brain capacity (such as chickens) than humans never engage in Fratricide or random acts of violence, and kill only for the purposes of survival.

That's a load of BS. Chimpanzees and other types of monkeys have been known to engage in various acts of war amongst each other. Leopards, whales and others have been observed hunting for sport. Siblicide (killing brothers and sisters for a bigger share of parental resources) is fairly common in the animal kingdom, including amongst eagles, sharks, hyenas, etc. Fighting or killing for territory (physical land or access to mates) is almost universal in the animal kingdom. Even very "weak" animals like rabbits have been observed battling to the death for territory. So, my opponent's premise here is blatantly false and unsupported.

4) Greed is never justified and has shown presence more so in the Human Race than in any other member of nature.

First, I obviously disagree with the latter part of this statement as detailed by my description of other animals who engage in human-like behavior, including greed. Second, I perceive greed to be a negatively excessive aspect of survival instincts which are merely innate drives that seek to secure our own survival and the procreation of our offspring. Clearly those with the most resources have the greater chance to adapt and survive... this is common sense. For this reason, I disagree that greed - which my opponent has cited as being an excessive desire to acquire wealth and possessions - is never justified.

5) Various other cases such as the Holocaust, Mafia, and other organizations claiming vigilantism as their justification proceed to end human life for the purposes of lack of tolerance and pleasure respectively.

Not true. In the case of the Holocaust, you're taking one man's misguided interpretation of history and politics and applying it to the entire human race. That's not fair. Additionally, the Holocaust was supposed to be about ethnic cleansing and moral superiority - not a sick and twisted pleasure for death. In reality, the Holocaust was a political move with economic and racist origins. Again, with wealth as a goal, that is still referring to resources, and racism (similar to nationalism) once again deals with the preservation of the self or those that one can identify with. Regarding the mafia, the same logic applies. These people don't go around killing for fun - they go around killing for money. Furthermore, some groups such as the mafia DID actually try and carry out some forms of vigilantism, which again isn't so much for pleasure as it is to try and uphold some form of morality.

6) The knowledge of nuclear technology has become more a cause for concern of the continuance of humankind rather than it's preservation through energy efficiency, therefore it has become appallingly obvious in recent times that with the development of intelligence comes the inherent advancement of evil.

I negate. I've already addressed nuclear intelligent in this debate; however, I'll finalize my R1 argument by attacking your conclusion. It would seem to me that the development of intelligence has nothing to do with the advancement of evil, but rather it is just used as means to carry out what is considered evolutionary morally appropriate. For instance, since evolution often leads us to violent endeavors, the technology and advancement of nuclear missiles could very well be used to carry out those goals. However, since evolution also promotes morality in the sense that we want to secure what is best for us... and that means cohabitation with others with the expectation of mutual respect... then again this technology and advancement (i.e. missiles) can be used to scare people into acting appropriately (peacefully) since everybody, generally speaking, has the instinct to survive.

That said, I'd like to thank my opponent again for the thoughtful first round and wish her good luck in the next.
Debate Round No. 1
SherlockLily7

Pro

1) A statistical increase in violence and hostility through the ages is far to broad and can never be obtained, especially because often the frequency of violence and hostility posesses an inverse correlation with its seriousness and severity. Rather, as pointed out by the Con, they have remained relatively the same, but intellectual advances such as technology has obviously become more sophisticated as time has worn on. For this reason, man has logically found it less and less necessary to resort to extreme measures for the sole purpose of survival. So if the need has reduced but the violence has remained the same, an alterior motive must be present, ergo greed and evil.

2) I disagree with my opponents clain that Selfishness = Survival. Survival is defined as simply the ability to ENDURE during adverse circumstances. Take the Inca-Spanish example given earlier for instance, there is no proof given by the Con to support the idea that a ransom on their Emporer as well as a preemptive and brutal murder of the Incan citizens was necessary at all. The Spanish certainly could have ENDURED with the establishment of strategic treaties and humane capture (with the proper treatment of slaves as exhibited by the Greek Empire, for instance) to both acheive their land conquering objectives and simultaneously exhibiting compassion for their fellow species. Only when their life was threatened (which it was not) does the survival issue come into play. Mainly greed, as stated previously, fueled their actions in this particular instance.

3) Though families or groups of animals have been seen to feud with one another for territory and resources (again, killing for the purpose of survival), I am curious as to the Leopards and Whales hunting for sport, and ask for sources on that particular peice of information. The intent of the Chicken-Fratricide argument was to show that the animals exampled by the Con such as eagles, sharks, and Hyena's do kill for the purpose of survival, but not of excessive greed or revenge (only kill to the extent necessary). If the Con's agrument held to be true, then the evidence would be seen in animals with the overwhelming capacity to kill (snakes, etc. ) as they would be a bigger concern to Human and Animal populations.

4) Excessive wealth and posessions has never been a criteria for enduring under adverse circumstances. Even to provide for one's offspring does not require EXCESSIVE wealth or posessions because by the time the third generation has come to need the resources to live, the second generation has already strategized and is teaching the principles of "enduring under adverse curcumstances", so beyond the point of childhood the capacity for greed at the expense of others is indeed unjustified for both humand and animals alike, making the Con's point void.

5) Whatever profit the Mafia made did most certainly not go towards personal survival but rather the spoils of power and illegal cartels, essentially unneeded pleasure at the expense of others, as previously stated. And regardless of the reason of instances such as the Holocaust, it remains that only a species with developed intellegence could have planned and initiated such an awful plot.

6) Since nuclear intellegence has inadvertently promoted evil ideals by opening up the possibilities and therefore the desire to carry it out, it has in essence spurred evil and its ability to be used in the modern world on a wider scale. SO in conclusion, the evolution of the mind and the development of intellegence not only provides the means by which to carry out evil as stated by the Con, but the ability and therefore the want to carry it out.

I also wish to thank my very worthy opponent, this debate is excellent practice.
Danielle

Con

I don't have much character space so let's get right down to it :)

1) Pro acknowledges that there is no evidence which proves her claim that humankind has become more violent over time. In that case, we must ignore her resolution which states that with the development of intelligence comes the inherent advancement of evil. Let's not forget that she has yet to prove (1) Humans are inherently evil, (2) Evil is advancing, and (3) It's because of or instigated by technology.

Pro has said, "Since technology has become more advanced, man has found it less necessary to resort to extreme measures for the sole purpose of survival. If the need has reduced but the violence has remained the same, an ulterior motive must be present, ergo greed and evil." There are several problems with this. First, she said that the need for violence has been reduced but the violence has remained the same. This contradicts her original point that you cannot actually prove violent tendencies have increased. Second, if what she meant to say was that violent tendencies still inherently reside in the human species despite the need for violence for survival, again I would have to disagree. I submit that man has found alternative means to show aggression, such as participation in sports. Since mankind no longer needs to stay in shape or exercise their masculinity via hunting, they release their testosterone and need to compete and be aggressive through physical contact sports [1].

Additionally, I propose that there are other ways to demonstrate one's greed (and evil) aside from violence. For instance, cheating to get ahead, theft, and other actions would demonstrate one's selfish desires. To claim that violence is the only (or at least a very prominent) way to demonstrate greed, Pro would have to back that up with some kind of evidence. She has not thus far.

2) Pro again visits the example of the Incas and the Spanish, noting that it was not NECESSARY (for survival) for the Spanish to murder the Incan people. I agree. However, what I said was that innate selfish desires MOTIVATED the people to do these things. If we are to believe that evolution a.k.a. Survival of the Fittest were true (and we should), then of course people are going to feel the need to not only adequately surpass others but rather DOMINATE others to (1) demonstrate their superiority (2) secure procreation for themselves and their offspring.

People have been enslaving others to demonstrate their superiority since the beginning of man; we cannot attribute this harshness to technology. Furthermore, we cannot accept Pro's supposition that only when your life is threatened do survival instincts in humans come into play. That is simply not true. For example, when we're hungry, we eat. This is a basic survival instinct in animals. Suppose it's lunch time and I won't be home until dinner. Rationally, I know that I don't have to eat lunch for my SURVIVAL, and yet it is something that I do because I have an innate desire to do so; I am hungry because I have been biologically designed to want food to sustain my person.

Similarly, human beings are born to be inherently selfish. This is to ensure a desire for you to protect yourself, your family and procreate. Biology is all about progression and survival. In this day and age, we suppress our selfish desires whenever and wherever necessary in order to function properly in society. There's rules about dominating others because we have created a legal system again out of selfishness; we want to protect our rights and in doing so must consider the rights of others as well. We don't nuke another countries because we don't want others doing that to us. Thus it is because of selfish motives that we have learned to advance socially. We are selfish ALL the time not because of survival; however, the inherent desire of selfishness comes from an innate drive intended for survival as man was created. And finally on this subject, again my opponent has not proven that it is because of the development of intelligence than man has become MORE evil.

3) Considering my above point, let's revisit the idea of siblicide. Pro has said that this is done for survival; however, note that the parent animal has the intention of distributing the resources among the young equally or to the point that each one can survive. However, out of innate selfishness, the young want MORE than what is necessary (another biological instinct) and that is why they turn against their siblings.

Now, according to several sources, animals like wolves do indeed hunt for sport. One notes, "There was a documentary on the Discovery Channel last year that showed when the wolves would attack the sheep, instead of killing 1, 2 or 3 of them for food, they killed the whole flock of sheep, sometimes over 25 head of them. They pointed out that the wolves seemed to just enjoy the kill as much as acquiring the food... The wolves are just doing what nature programmed them to do. They kill to eat and they kill for fun, much like man does" [2].

"So what if wolves hunt for sport? It's natural. Cats do it. Also, killer whales do it. I've seen killer whales killing a baby whale and then abandoning it after it was dead. I've also seen bottle nose dolphins brutalize a juvenile porpoise for fun (I assume this since the two male dolphins were obviously aroused). I've also seen Chimpanzees kill and eat a baby chimpanzee. It goes on and on in the natural world..." [2].

Consider the fact that wolves have killed off 50% of the population of coyotes in Yellowstone since their reintroduction. They don't eat the coyotes; they do this to demonstrate their superiority. Here is a link to part of a documentary which demonstrates this very plainly [3]. Indeed, there are many sources that animals kill for fun and not only for food [4], etc.

4) Pro continues to suggest that greed is unnecessary and is therefore unjustified for humans. Again, it is not just humans that are greedy. This is basic ANIMAL INSTINCT. It may not seem logical considering current times; however, in the animal kingdom and before modernization, individuals had to be greedy - or have greedy motives - in order to survive. It's not just about survival either; many people feel capitalistic in the sense that they feel entitled to what they've worked to earn, for instance. No doubt wealth carries a lot of benefits. As a side note, what exactly has Pro proven here? She says that greed is unnecessary; however, in no way does this support the resolution that is it because of increased intelligence has evil advanced.

5) Pro suggests that only intelligent beings could have committed evil genocide (the Holocaust). My sited sources depict otherwise. And again, Pro has failed to prove that it is only the INTELLIGENT species (humans) that are greedy. My point is that animals have greedy instincts as basic survival instincts. Of course this greed is going to be excessive in some individuals and those with the means (intelligence) are going to carry this out. However, those with the means in terms of brawn or strength in numbers would carry this out as well (again - see animal examples). I would argue that this is a smart thing for them to do, and thus intelligence may have something to do with this, but it wouldn't necessarily be EVIL.

6) No, nuclear intelligence has NOT promoted evil. As I said, it can be argued that it's INHIBITED evil (war). Pro concludes, "The evolution of the mind and the development of intelligence provides the means and the ability to carry out evil." I've proven that selfishness is a BASIC ideal, and that one doesn't need technology to carry it out!

Sources:

[1] http://www.manhood.com.au...
[2] http://answers.yahoo.com...
[3]
[4] http://www.mtmultipleuse.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SherlockLily7

Pro

1) The Con blindly claims that I acknowledge no evidence to my theory, but fails to investigate the means by which the advancement of evil through acquired intelligence can be proven (on which I will shortly expand)
1a) It need not be proven that Humans are Inherently Evil, even if humans are inherently good, ideas showing that they are becoming more evil and exhibiting more evil motives are certainly valid. Judging by the juxtaposition of the prevalence of war and lack of compassion shown throughout human history with the good intentions and sacrifices also examined in the moral historical records of human beings, humans inherently posess both good and evil inside of us, but the question remains which side is progressing faster.
2a) + 3a) Any evidence that the presence of evil has remained the same while the means have increased and motive has decreased due to the advancement in technology thereby showing evil and greed (see Pro pt.1 R2) is JUST AS VALID, IF NOT MORE VALID than any evidence that the evils themselves are increasing (which, as previously stated is impossible due to external factors considering that often, the frequency of war and other such conflicts are indicative of the severity, and therefore motive, of each skirmish as decreased, making it an innaccurate measure of the advancement of evil)
2) The Pro still fails to recognize that there are two ways to test the advancement of evil, but only one that is truly feasable as evidence of this theory:
1a) Showing that violence has remained relatively constant throughout history but the need for violence for the purposes of survival (due to advanced technology and intelligence) has decreased shows that it is only inherent evil and greed fueling the continued cruelty.
2a) Showing that the occurences of evil have increased (which is invalid due to the reasons in my previous Pro subpts.2a+3a, R3 seen above)
Subpt.2a requires the factors of severity, motive, and psyche to be analyzed and taken out of the equation (a total impossibility unless the Con can provide some substantial means of doing so). I am, therefore indeed NOT contradicting myself in that I am saying that Subpt.1a for which I originally advocated is solid evidence, considering that compiled lists of wars as well as the rate of violence in advanced countries such as the United States have had little fluctuation in the past centuries (Dept. of Defense and the Heritage Foundation 1990).
Also, adressing Con's second point, sports came around only shortly after the development of sophisticated hunting and is in no way a substitute for evil intentions as evidenced by the occurences of war. I don't see either countries or people investing in physical activity as a means of promoting peace, so in this context the small amount of impulsive agression seen in sports is not a substantive argument to refute the advancement of evil through developed intelligence.
Concerning the Con's additional point, nowhere did the Pro state that "violence is the only war to demonstrate greed). Violence is in no way expressly stated in the resolution, but simply an example used in these rounds. So, that being said, I absolutely agree with the Con's idea that cheating, theft, and other actions most certainly demonstrate human's selfish desires.

2) Adressing the Con's idea that the Incan Massacre was for the purpose of 1) demonstrating superiority and 2) ensuring procreation is untrue from a practical standpoint. The Spanish, as previously stated, may very well have enslaved the population while negotiating and treating them with respect (yes, the Incan's and Spanish were somehow able to communicate as evidenced by the articulated requirements of emporer Atahuallpa's ransom). This also would have yeilded greater prosperity to themselves and their young due to the profits from slave/min.-wage labors. This also would have established dominance to demonstrate their superiority. The Spanish certainly had enough knowledge to see the economic feasability of this option, which would have enabled them to gain my minimizing the evil of their actions, and thus it remains that they simply chose not to. According to the definition accepted by both the Pro and Con, survival entails "enduring under adverse circumstances", meaning that yes, survival instincts come into play in threatening situations (and in regards ot the Con's example, yes, hunger is in theory an internal feedback mechanism that is telling you that you will die in a matter of weeks if you don't eat). To demonstrate superiority for no beneficial reason by massacring a population less sophisticated than one's own therefore exemplifies evil more so than survival. Pro is not denying the idea that innate selfishness exists in man, simply that that selfishness has been exemplified through the development of intelligence overtime (the idea of which I have already adressed in my Pro pt.1 R3)

3) The Pro's animal examples are a Cherry-picked variety of all the animals that inhabit the Earth. Wolves, for example, ended up killing due to a likely testosterone hype that they are not as able to control as Humans are; the killing off of Coyotes in Yellowstone also has to do with competition for resources, not sport. Most importantly, recognize that the Con's examples of the Wolves(wolf), Porpoise and Killer Whale(Dolphin varieties), and Chimpanzees(our closest primatal relatives) are in the Top 5 along with Humans as THE MOST INTELLIGENT ANIMALS ON THE PLANET EARTH according to every source that I have come across. This idea must flow towards the Pro, because even these few examples given by the Con all show superiority of intelligence correlating directly to evil behavior.

4) Greed is only "animal instinct" to an extent, the fine line between robbing others of necessary resources when you have your own and taking from others to fend for yourself is an important distinction. As evidenced by the previous point, intelligent animals have a tendancy to act on the first option rather than the second. And in regards to the capitalistic argument, the idea of capitalism is giving someone something in return for a profit on a level playing field. Intelligence allows for ways around this system through abuse and exploitation (i.e. Madoff) There is an obvious distinction between putting your life's work into making profit from a grocery store and killing the store owner and taking his money.

5) Again the Con makes assumptions as to the limitations of the resolution at hand. No where does it say that it is expressly humans that are being discussed and that it is only humans that are greedy. Humans are simply the best example because it is easier to track both their intellectual and violent progress, and that they are the most intelligent animals on Earth. Other intelligent species, as proven by the Con, in fact, are also greedy. So contrary to the Con, I have provided adequate proof that intelligent animals are more likely to be greedy, overly selfish, and evil(Con pt.3 R2 and Pro pt.3 R3).

6) Nuclear intelligence has absolutely promoted evil! The Con is actually arguing that the power to annihilate multiple cities at a time with one bomb the size of a small desk while providing tons of radioactive damage afterwards in fact prevents evil. Although nations are cautious as to the power of Nuclear Technology, it is the most obvious means to ultimate immorality, and thus will inherently spur evil beleifs and ideas.

The development of intelligence has indeed shown direct correllation to the advancement of evil in many instances. Instances such as brutal war and calamitous technology is the strongest case for this idea. But luckily, the Pro has faith that the human race, knowledgeable of this fact, can proceed to evaluate it's actions and provide hope for our future. Seeing as the Pro has effectively refuted and turned the Con's points in negation, I strongly urge an affirmative vote.

Thank you Con!!
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for the great debate; however, note that her point rebuttal is kind of scattered and as such I will try to organize my response as comprehensively as possible. Happy reading :)

--> Pro's first point exclaims that there are "ideas" which show that humans are becoming more evil. However, note that Pro has failed to cite any SOURCES claiming that this is the case. She has simply integrated this as her OPINION. Thus we should not automatically accept this claim; instead you should take into consideration my points refuting why I don't think people have become more "evil" over time.

--> I'm really confused as to what Pro talks about next. I've said that first off, what is considered "evil" is subjective and changes over time. Moreover, any "evil" tendencies in humans is probably the same as it was way back... whenever. I've also argued that humans have progressed mentally and socially and thus probably morally as well; we now value life in higher regard and considering the example of missiles as a a DEFENSE instead of offensive tactic or precedent to war is one example in my favor.

--> I think what Pro is trying to say is that there is no way to prove that violent tendencies or evil has increased. If this is the case, then what has the point of this debate been? I'm confused due to her presentation of arguments; the numbers and letters jump around and her sentences aren't entirely cohesive, so I apologize - I'm trying to interpret her argument as best as I can. That in mind, I've argued in the last round that humans have found other ways to release natural aggression or survival instincts which Pro has interpreted as "evil" through aggressive sports and other competitive outlets, for example.

--> To counter this, Pro writes, "I don't see either countries or people investing in physical activity as a means of promoting peace, so in this context the small amount of impulsive aggression seen in sports is not a substantive argument to refute the advancement of evil through developed intelligence." First of all, consider the Olympics, anyone? Second, I said that sports help exhibit AGGRESSION and other inherent masculine and testosterone prompted things which I attribute to be necessary to survival.

--> Regarding war, it exists basically in the form of revolution (with survival and/or moral goals) OR to make a few powerful men very rich. This has nothing to do with whether or not people have become more evil, but rather how much the masses can be brainwashed and influenced to support a warped agenda. For instance, the "evil" demonstrated by the "terrorists" on 9/11 have been attributed by many skeptics to rich and greedy politicians themselves. This has nothing to do with the resolution regarding the advancement of intelligence or technology.

--> Next Pro cites a source (sort of...?) in saying that there have been more wars recently than in the past. This is simply not true. We live in an unprecedented time of world peace. Sure there is conflict going on in some parts of the world; however, throughout history there have always been some type of war, revolution, etc. going on somewhere. Consider my point of why war exists. Again, remember that Pro is supposed to be supporting the RESOLUTION which states that people are becoming more evil because of technology and intelligence - not greed itself. She has not supported this.

--> Pro has said, "I absolutely agree with the Con's idea that cheating, theft, and other actions most certainly demonstrate human's selfish desires." Okay, cool. Again, this debate is supposed to be about how KNOWLEDGE and TECHNOLOGY makes people greedy and evil. I've pointed out that people have ALWAYS been greedy! Even when we were primitive cavemen! I've also argued that this isn't necessarily "evil" (though some of it surely is) but rather just exaggerated survival instincts.

--> Taking the Spanish/Incan example into consideration, Pro points out that it would have been most economically prosperous for the Spanish to have simply enslaved the Incans instead of killing them. Note that to some, killing would be more humane, and moreover, THIS DOES NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION. How was intelligence responsible for massacring the Incans? The Incans would have killed the Spanish invaders if they had the means. This does not support that technology is responsible for evil; the PEOPLE are and the technology just helps them carry out what they have carried out even if they both had to fight only with their fists. Indeed just as intelligence can be a weapon for war, it can also be an instrument of peace. Again, I'd consider our attempts at maintaining world peace one example of this being practiced.

--> I think we can see Pro's general argument here when she states: Pro is not denying the idea that innate selfishness exists in man, simply that that selfishness has been exemplified through the development of intelligence overtime. Well... thank you, Captain Obvious? I've pointed out how innate selfishness has been demonstrated over time through intelligence and technology; however, not BECAUSE of either. This is similar to the familiar protest, "Guns don't kill people - people kill people!"

--> Moving on to my animal examples, Pro notes that I have only provided examples of intelligent, violent animals. This is an entirely new argument much different from her original response that human intelligence proves that we are the most evil and violent, and animals aren't, and as such this is to be considered "abusive" conduct in a debate as she offers a new argument in the third round. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that even "dumber" animals are violent, such as sharks, hyenas and black widows - which are considered a dumb and yet they eat their mate for no reason. Anyway, I disagree with Pro regardless. In the animal kingdom, disputes and dominance is settled through violence because that is the only way they know how (since they are not intelligent to communicate any other way). On the contrary, humans have found alternative means to handle conflict and as such our intelligence proves superior and a way to overcome "evil."

--> Pro writes, "Greed is only animal instinct to an extent; the fine line between robbing others of necessary resources when you have your own and taking from others to fend for yourself is an important distinction." I've already explained how this is untrue. We still have an innate desire to acquire MORE than necessary for not only survival but prestige. For instance, women are biologically designed to appreciate being provided for. In the animal kingdom, the "richest" animal or the male with the most resources gets the best and biggest selection of female mates to procreate. Similarly, psychology has revealed that humans do the same thing. Men, for instance, brag about their power, money and prestige through clothes, cars, etc. because women are attracted to wealthy men; in other words men that can provide for a family, etc. This example is applicable to both animals and humans, obviously.

--> Sure intelligence can help you be deceitful and steal (in capitalism, for instance); however, Pro again misses the point and that this innate desire to use intelligence to steal is part of Darwinism - survival of the fittest - which I have explained in the previous example.

--> Pro writes, "The Con is arguing that the power to annihilate multiple cities at a time with one bomb the size of a small desk while providing tons of radioactive damage afterward in fact prevents evil." Um, you're straw manning my point. My argument was that the threat of this damage is so great, that people keep this consequence in mind as a reason to achieve peace in a non-violent way.

Conclusion: I think that greed and evil stems from innate desires. Intelligence and technology helps us achieve these desires, but does not CAUSE these desires as Pro has argued in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Pro,
Clearly humans are A LOT less violent than in the past. Go back 100 years: I could probably smack you around if you were my wife & could get away with it; nowadays, I don't think so. Go back another 200 years & I could probably rape you then claim you were a witch and get YOU executed & I go scott free. These are just examples & not to be taken personally; I of course mean no harm or slander to you but it's to prove a point: the further back you go in history, the more brutal it gets and the more accepted that brutality is. Romans, Huns, Vikings, etc.

As far as the Spanish & the Incas, let's not forget that they were also trying to Christianize them and build an empire as well. Let's not also forget that the Incas committed human sacrifices of adolescents and even infants. Additionally, all conquest is brutal but unlike in other areas, the Spanish mixed in with the natives and so the Incas are still around today: Peruvians, Ecuadorians, Bolivians, northwest Argentinians, north and north-central Chileans, and southern Colombians.

The Aztecs were much worse in volume of human sacrifice: in some cases killing over 80,000 people in one ceremony! I think that nonsense stopped pretty quick once Cortez got there.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
SherlockLily7DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07