CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
6
Yes No
Debate Score:16
Arguments:10
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No (4)

Debate Creator

E223(193) pic



Are Humans Naturally Evil?

Yes

Side Score: 10
VS.

No

Side Score: 6
3 points

Humans come with all sorts of do-dads like aposable thumbs and, arguably, souls. Humans have so much potental to help those incapable of helping themselves, old people, children, and the poor. Yet many people would steal the last dollar bill from a large hungry family than help them.Humans do terrible things to other humans, they do terrible things to animals, Humans generally do terrible things where ever they can. And sometimes humans won't even turn to look at those that need help. Humans are selfish terrible things and to blame history or the past for these things is just shirking responsibility. Humans learn quickly, right? So why can't humans learn to be good creatures?

Of course people will just say good and evil are subjective. Well, if thats true Humans are evil in my views. Enough said.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes, or so says the Catholic Church.

But one little exorcism will fix ya good as new. (;

Side: yes
2 points

we are born natural curios instead of evil but curios make as find out things whicj could destroy the planet like how big can we get a nuclear bomb!!!

Side: Curios
1 point

Let me give some examples why humans are naturally evil. If humans are naturally not evil, millions of warfare in the human history would not happened. We wouldn't need Security Council in the United Nations to maintain world peace, if humans inherit naturally good characteristic and find ways to cooperate peacefully. We wouldn't need police to keep our security safe, since no one would try to harm each other. In summary, we wouldn't need any protection to keep us secure from the threats that we create to each other.

Side: Yes
1 point

as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue.

selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy.

.[3] The group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal background, psychological impairments or medical problems.

instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners.

. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours in order to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics to control them

Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[6] in order to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies.

. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other prisoners to repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[7] The guards stated that he would be released from solitary confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.

Zimbardo noted that, of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality.

Side: Yes
1 point

as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue.

selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy.

.[3] The group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal background, psychological impairments or medical problems.

instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners.

. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours in order to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics to control them

Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[6] in order to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies.

. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other prisoners to repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[7] The guards stated that he would be released from solitary confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.

Zimbardo noted that, of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality.

Side: Yes
2 points

Humans aren't evil, we just are wired to look out for ourselves first. In the past, if you didn't look out for yourself, you would die. It's instinct that has been with us for thousands of years.

Side: No
1 point

Morality is a relative concept, what's evil to one person may not be evil to another. I personally believe that it's "cool" to call humans evil, and people say it because it makes them feel like they're just being "deep."

Side: No

Humans are naturally good.

Side: No
0 points

No such thing as evil (lets just not refer to God or moral authority) that's provable.

So how can humans be something that doesn't exist?

Side: No