any action not based on a natural need is evil
Debate Rounds (5)
I will start off with some definitions.
1. Action- a thing done; an act.
2. Natural- existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
3. Need- require (something) because it is essential or very important.
4. Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Let's first go over what most people agree are natural needs, that is, things one needs to survive daily. These things are food, water, shelter, and garments. Other secondary needs include education, healthcare, and sanitation. These can essentially be deemed as good, the antithesis of evil.
Going by the definition of evil, that is, anything immoral, unjust, or malevolent, you are essentially stating that any action that doesn't work towards any primary or secondary need is wrong. This is undeniably false. Say one decides to watch television, or play a videogame; this doesn't achieve any of the natural needs, but it is not harming anything or anyone, and it's in no way immoral. What of the preacher who teaches religion? That doesn't fulfill any natural needs, but it's not immoral or malevolent.
Your argument makes no sense at all. Ignorance of what program is being shown does not make its viewing evil. What does that have to do in relation to imagining reality? You are making obscure connections.
I have no new arguments for this round.
yes movies are non sense, you dont know them, i know the light on my screen and the sounds i hear, so watching a movie is like watching stories inside the head of another person, so that my speakers are like the sounds in his head
i cant be resonable if i dont know, unawarness is the only sIN, and if i know, then i dont have to believe
im saying watching tv is evil, as i dont know.
love is the root of all evil, love is belief
"Live=evol."- What? Are you saying that living is evil?
"yes movies are non sense, you dont know them, i know the light on my screen and the sounds i hear, so watching a movie is like watching stories inside the head of another person"- Again, what? This doesn't add anything to the debate and is completely irrelevant.
"im saying watching tv is evil, as i dont know."- This contradicts your earlier statement, as you had stated that you are aware of the program's lights and sounds.
"love is the root of all evil, love is belief."- Another baseless argument. Where's your proof that love is evil?
I'm starting to think my opponent is a troll, as he has apparently had two other debates over the same topic presented here, all with the same nonsensical posting.
love for power is evil, so evil loves power
im not to sure its hard to figure these Things out pin point, but as i see it living is false, and life is true
"i know the light on my screen, thats it, it Means the emotion i feel is not true." Still doesn't make watching TV evil.
"belief=be lie"- Really? That's a very far-fetched connection, and it still doesn't make sense.
"love for power is evil, so evil loves power."- This fails to support or add to your previous point that "love is the root of all evil, love is belief," as you make assumptions without proving their truth. Is the desire for more truly evil? What if someone poor wants a higher standard of living, thus making him more powerful in society? Is that inherently bad in any way?
"i see it living is false, and life is true"- You're not adhering to the debate's topic, and you're providing no evidence to support ANY of your arguments.
belief is non sense, not real, as i dont know it
dude this subject is far to big for me to just cover.. but i think we will end where you still havnt countered my position succesfully
you are not countering any of my positions...
I HAVE countered your arguments, which was pretty hard to do considering most of them didn't make a shred of sense. "selfish=sell fish," really?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't define resolution terms and didn't put forth any argument that I could understand. Examples: live=evol belief=be lie selfish=sell fish Arguments go to Con. As far as conduct, Pro comes across as a troll to me. But if we assume he is not snickering behind his keyboard, I still believe that no effort went into this despite the fact that he was the instigator. It's rather annoying when you start a debate instigated by another and then find that you would rather not finish because the debate is a joke. However, not finishing gets you the forfeit and a loss so you trudge through the nonsense. This is extremely poor conduct in my opinion. Conduct to Con. Pro didn't use proper sentence structure, capitals or periods in general. Sentences were difficult to understand, bordering on nonsense, unless you're Dr. Suess but I don't think that was the point here. S&G to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.