The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DonaldTrump
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

any action not based on a natural need is evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
DonaldTrump
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 77842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

DonaldTrump

Con

I will start off with some definitions.
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.

ARGUMENTS
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.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

" cant know what is on a screen i am watching, so watching movies is evil, there is no difference to imagining reality
DonaldTrump

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

live=evol

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

shoot
DonaldTrump

Con

Rebuttals
"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.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

i know the light on my screen, thats it, it Means the emotion i feel is not true

belief=be lie

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
DonaldTrump

Con

"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.


Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

watching tv is evil because i dont know it, it is emotional attachment to information

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

selfish=sell fish

you are not countering any of my positions...
DonaldTrump

Con

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?

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
btw have you noticed morality dosnt make sense?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
absolute non sense airmax.. absolute.. not science
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
whats wrong with voting on the round or on who you think shoulld win.. dosnt matter anyway.. votes can be wrong
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
I"m not upset, just pointing out what appears to me to be obvious. The real world is messy, at least the one I work in. In that world, I would have taken 5 seconds to look at the debate text and skipped the vote delete. Like I said, I get it, it just looks real funny from where I'm standing. Moderate however you want.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Just noticed you have actually voted. You've already put in the effort, there's no reason to be so upset about it after the fact.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
@ax123man

The voting standards apply to all debates, and by assessing this debate's quality would be a subjective evaluation on my part. If you feel that DonaldTrump truly deserves the vote, you'll explain that vote in more detail. It was his choice to take this debate, and his choice to go through each of the rounds. It's your choice whether or not you're willing to explain your vote well enough to meet the basic standards of the site.
Posted by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
whiteflame
technically you were correct to remove my vote. I get it. However, what did we gain from this? Do you really expect voters to take this type of debate seriously? I would think it would make sense to put effort into vote moderation according to the quality of the debate. So after DonaldTrump suffered through this nonsense, I took the time to vote the first time, you remove it and Trump is probably thinking "Why the h*ck did I ever take this debate", and then I have to take time to vote again - with a better explanation. Seriously?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
****************************************************************
>Reported vote: ax123man// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't define resolution terms and didn't put forth any argument that I could understand. Perhaps I'm just far below Pros level of intellect, but I'm going to take a risk here and vote con.

[*Reason for removal*] Considering how non-sensical Pro"s argument was, the arguments points are justified. S&G and conduct, however, need to be explained.
******************************************************************************
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
@DonaldTrump I cannot vote since my privileges have been removed. No matter, you're winning anyway.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Vispex=troll=genius=worst debater=best debater
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 1 year ago
ax123man
vi_spexDonaldTrumpTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
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.