The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Great Evil is Alternative to Nature

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
museeduciel has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 116521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Evil is all of existence, individually...

Good is all of existence!

Evil is good when it counters itself!

A Greater Evil is the alternative to Nature, which can counter itself.

All of the man made is a greater evil, but some man made technology is used for a greater good.

A Greater Good is all of evil countering itself!


Good and evil are subjective and completely different depending on each person, and it is a concept made by humans. Living things require nature to survive. Without nature, there would be no humans to create the concepts of good or evil, therefore evil is not alternative to nature.
Debate Round No. 1


Morality is balance of good and evil, which can be shifted in various ways dependant on species-set.

Good morality is what's beneficent to existence, and evil morality is what's not.

To proper understand morality we must ponder the question "how nothing becomes something?"

The question is stupid because starting from nothing is equally as crucial as starting from something, but a sense of the moment is good.

Nothing without a something is immoral because there is no existence and nothing with a something is moral because there is existence.

It's a paradox.

The law is that the moral outweighs the immoral, a case where nothing exists is more improbable; there is a trinity of good against a single evil.

Good with duplication, good with knowledge of evil, and good as a trinity are the primal formula.

Evil is nothing, or nothing to something.

Therefore, good is greater than evil and it's more probable for something than nothing.

A life as a human is complex enough to force moral decision, your eyes without any input, are nothing to something - or are nothing empirically.

Good is a defining element to all, and can exist in all life forms. Evil is not good, and can exist in all life forms.

A human is either good or evil all of it's life. Morality

Primal existence was a great learning nature, it created something from nothing because after it would learn more somethings from its creation.


Going by your argument that good morality benefits existence and evil does not, it is impossible for humans to be only good or only evil for their entire life. If someone helped prevent cutting down trees, that would be a good action, because it benefits existence, as it allows trees to exist for longer. However, if the same person stepped on ants intentionally, that would be evil. But the person is neither good or evil, as they have done good and evil things. The argument you made that I mentioned earlier also directly contradicts your argument that nothing without a something is evil. Although nothingness doesn't contain existence, it also does not harm existence, therefore it is not immoral. Because nothingness isn't immoral, and without nature there would be nothing, the alternative of nature is not immoral or evil.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.