The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 857 times Debate No: 77865
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Thank you for making this debate. Good luck.

Now let's get started.

Action- a thing done
Base- have as the foundation for (something); use as a point from which (something) can develop.
Natural- existing in or caused by nature
Need- require (something) because it is essential or very important.
Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent.

A little bit of a strange resolution, but I'll debate it.

So let me start off with an example. I am walking down the street and I find a human laying down injured and malnourished. I have food, water and some bandages, unfortunately I am tight on supplies and losing any would be risky. So based on my natural need I would either leave the person and save my resources to use myself, or I would see if I can take anything he has that may be useful to me. According to the resolution doing anything other than those two options is evil. If I did something against my natural need something I could do would be take some of my scarce supplies and do my best to help the person, possibly saving their life. If the resolution is correct potentially saving someone's life is immoral or malevolent, however that action is a very benevolent thing to do. Thus the resolution is not correct, this means that the pro side is wrong and you should vote con.

Now let's use another scenario. Every non-asexual human has a natural need to have sex in order to procreate to pass down their genetic material. This need has been caused by thousands and thousands of years of evolution and natural selection. "We are programmed to do so," says sex therapist Richard A. Carroll, associate Northwestern University psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor. Therefore we have a natural need for sex. Now onto the example. Let's say you're in the middle on nowhere and you find a passed out member of the opposite sex. Some would naturally have the need or the desire to have sex with them. For those individuals doing anything other than that would be unnatural. So if the resolution is correct to do anything other than having sex with said person while they are unconscious is evil. Many people would consider doing that immoral which, according to the definition is evil, is wrong. Sex with consent is wrong. That is a statement almost everyone can stand by, therefore the resolution is wrong.

The resolution is wrong, for it has many holes in it and instances where it is wrong. For the resolution to be correct there must be no holes and it must be entirely true with no exceptions. That is not the case, therefore the resolution is wrong meaning pro is wrong.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1


thoughts are actions, thoughts are not Things



self preservation is moral, but you can choose to give the man food, but the evil part is you having a job in this case

selfish=sell fish

your examples are to complicated to define clearly, you dont make points but make assertions instead


First off you really have not given a rebuttal to any of my claims, except saying my arguments are assertions and too complicated.

"Thoughts are actions, thoughts are not things" I understand this, however it has no relevance to the debate so I will disregard it.

"natural=random=chaos" This is incorrect. There is no direct link between natural and random.

"machine=specified=order" This I will not deny. This is fairly irrelevant to the debate, however the only connection I can see is you are comparing nature to machinery. It seems that you are implying that any other action than what is natural is a mechanical action which is promoting order. If I am correct it seems that you are saying that order is evil and chaos is a force of good.

If I am right about your argument then let's play ball. Chaos allows for any malevolent actions to take place. In chaos there is murder, there is suffering and there is greed. Order is a force meant to end chaos and replace it with peace. While not being perfect it does allow people to live their lives without a constant fear of danger. Order is not evil, if anything true order is benevolent.

"self preservation is moral" I agree.

" but you can choose to give the man food, but the evil part is you having a job in this case" You do not have to play a part. You have the choice to play a part, or to not play a part. Playing a part in this is not evil. If you do the action I presented you are not evil even though the resolution says you are evil, therefore the resolution is wrong. You have not proved that the resolution can be correct despite my examples, therefore the resolution is still incorrect and at this point in the debate I should be considered the winner.

You did not respond to my other example meaning that it still contradicts the resolution and that means that the resolution is incorrect.

"selfish=sell fish" Ok, you are either trolling, or this simple line has a very deep meaning. What this could mean is that selling fish is evil. Selling fish could be a metaphor for making money. So what you are saying could be an anti-capitalism statement that trying to make money is selfish and only caring for yourself. So let me put you in a scenario. You are a young man in his mid 20s. He doesn't have a family to lean on, but he does have a wife and a son. You recently lost your job and you can't put food on the table for your family. Your girlfriend can't find a job, so it's up to you. So you start fishing and feeding your family with fish and selling the rest for money to buy other food and try to put a roof over your head. Is that selfish? I think not, therefore your statement of selfish=sell fish is wrong.

"your examples are to complicated to define clearly, you dont make points but make assertions instead" Truth be told my examples and ideas are not that complicated. They should be fairly easy to understand, and to be fair they are far easier to figure out and understand than your ideas. You then say I am just making assertions and not making points. I disagree. I am making points as well as assertions, and if either of us are just making assertions without points it is you.

Overall it seems that you are arguing against order, civilization and capitalism. You are advocating for a world of chaos where you take no actions than your own personal needs. A world of chaos where the only factor of our actions is instinct is not a world we want to live in. We have been there. You lived in a constant fear of death. You were on a endless search for food, water and sex. For what purpose? For no purpose. You lived a short life that was only long enough for you to procreate and pass down your genetic material. That is not a life you want to live. In the chaotic ages we were violent, viscous, selfish and merciless. To go back to that would be devolution of not only our society, but us as people.

Sure order is not perfect. It has it's problems, but it's a better answer than chaos.
Debate Round No. 2


i already explained the crucks of it..

machine is specified, natural is random, intent is specified

on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle

you are evil for having a job, accepting that only 1 percent can live like gods, and this is the trap and reason why that hobo is there in the first place

your examples are ridiculessly complicated.. im not going to adress them more then i have

lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one,

any example of immorality is sufficient to counter my claim

sellfish is evil, so having a job is evil, becsaue i accept the 99 percent suffering, and the 1 percent to be like gods


Not to be rude but no, you really haven't explained anything. You simply make a bunch of random statements that have pretty close to nothing to do with the resolution, therefore you have not specified what you are actually talking about.

"you are evil for having a job" What would you rather have him do? Not get a job and let his family starve. Are you really saying it is evil for him to try to put food on the table for his family? Is feeding his family really an evil thing?

Money itself is not evil, capitalism itself is not evil, the economy itself is not evil. Rather it is what you do with money that can be either benevolent or malevolent. The top 1 % aren't always bad people. Let's take Bill Gates for example. He is one of the richest men in the world. He started a project offering 1 million dollars to anyone who can reinvent the condom to make the practice of using them more accepted. He wants to make the world more free of STI's. What does he gain from this? Nothing. He is not doing anything selfish or greedy. He is trying to make the world a better place.

Now let's take Dan Price. He recently cut his almost 1 million dollar salary to 70k a year to make it easier for his company to give a massive pay raise to all of their employees.

"your examples are ridiculously complicated.. im not going to adress them more then i have"
So because you can't understand my fairly simple ideas you are simply going to refuse to respond to them?

"any example of immorality is sufficient to counter my claim" So then let me give you an example of something natural that is immoral. Let's say you are a young man with a girlfriend (Let's say you're 16). You happen to have a knife on you. You are walking around and you see your girlfriend getting very close with a guy and you think they are attracted to each other. You don't know anything for sure, but you're jealous. The only thought filling your mind is to take her from him and make sure he doesn't go near her again. May I remind you that you have a knife. Your natural instinct may be to separate them and fight the man, maybe even kill him if it comes to it.

There, that's an example of a natural instinct that is immoral. That natural instinct to murder out of jealousy. So as you put it, that's sufficient to counter your claim. Therefore the resolution is wrong and you are wrong.

"sellfish is evil, so having a job is evil" Sure, you can say being selfish is evil. However what you fail to prove is that there is a direct link to having a job and being selfish. Until you can prove that your argument is illegitimate. I would also like to remind you this has nothing to do with the resolution

"becsaue i accept the 99 percent suffering, and the 1 percent to be like gods" Because you say 99% of the population are suffering and 1% are not having a job is evil. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Sure some people are suffering, but I assure you it is not 99% of the population. The top 1% will have a much greater chance to live a much better life, but that's not proving anything.
Debate Round No. 3


so i am wrong?

sry done


Yes. You are wrong.
Debate Round No. 4


Well since you have nothing further to say I guess this debate is over now.

Let's let the voters decide.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lol101 3 years ago
vi_spex will come back. He always does.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
votes determine nothing, losing is being wrong
Posted by lol101 3 years ago
I do. The statistics show that you lost. Admit it vi_spex, your thinking is flawed.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
use your powers wisely
Posted by lol101 3 years ago
Everything I say is true. You told me this.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
according to your belief system
Posted by lol101 3 years ago
vi_spex loses again.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
thank you
Posted by hldemi 3 years ago
Con you cant win this. Pro is living legend. His thoughts are hidden diamonds that are to be understood by much more evolves species then humans
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
seeing a homeless and wanting to help him is simply a reflection of you going to a job
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by krayracker 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was the same, pretty much... Spelling and grammmar clearly went to Con, I'm not sure if I saw a single period in Pro's arguments. Convincing arguments clearly went to Con because he gave many reasons the resolution was false. Since no sources were used, nobody gets that point. Interesting debate...
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
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: Once again, Pro failed to make a single coherent argument and instead is just wasting server space for Juggle