CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes, i think it is, because animals kill each other and other animals for food, and we did evolve from animals. But i still think it is wrong and you shouldn't kill people or animals as much as possible.
If we aren't supposed to kill, how are we supposed to get protein? I dislike the idea of waiting for an old and sick cow to drop dead so I can eat that nutritious skin and muscle.
It is. We kill ants, sheep, goats, pigs, cows, snakes, lizards, tigers, other wild and domesticated animals. And then we also 'kill' plants and forests to make way, build housing areas, new cities and "zoos". We kill everything except each other. Oh no, wait... We also kill babies when they are still in the womb; kill babies based on their gender and sacrifice them to Gods. We kill each other in wars or genocides or gender crimes. Not only is killing part of us but so is hypocrisy!
Seeing as most humans eat meat and meat is often attained through killing, i would say in the food respect it is completely apart of our nature. However if you mean the killing of another human i would say that we are shaped individually and that there are many events and situations that can push people to murder and kill and these are on a basic level instinctual desires to relieve stress/loss/pain, but what separates us from other animals is our intellect and through use of it we control these instincts and desires and impulses. I think perhaps though if there were no consequences to killing another human then i believe a lot more people would kill whether it be curiosity, revenge or simple blood-lust but the fact that we have laws against it shows that our caring and loving, or if at least mutual respect, nature is greater than our desire to kill, but again this is quite specific to individuals and what has happened to them in their life and lies more on nurture than nature. Since this is killing in general though i will say that to survive and to protect and to feed ourselves killing is undoubtedly apart of our nature.
I think it is... its just not part of us fully... its there but not all the way because if it was then we'd all be serial killers... I mean its part of animals instinct is to kill if threatened or for survival but in humans our brain chemistry is complex and I have no idea what I'm saying but yeah idk I hope you guys get what I'm trying to say :x
What differentiates serial killers from the average human being has a lot less to do with the capacity for killing (almost all of us have that), but the factors which bring that attribute to the fore (e.g. disassociation, antisocial personality, psychotic break, etc.).
Human nature isn't that savage. It takes a serial killer years to build up the tolerance to kill with no remorse, and in the process they lose themselves, becoming immoral sociopathic husks.
Even for a person to kill an animal they need to eat to survive comes with a level of guilt the first few times.
Most people would kill. It is like me killing someone just because I need to live or eat. Just like a animal. It is natural for us to kill for a reason. animals don't just kill for no reason. we are like a animal.
Most people wouldn't kill. The proof being that most people don't kill.
It is natural for us to kill for a reason, I agree, it's unnatural for us to kill for no reason or for unimportant reasons. Most psychologically sound people find it difficult to kill. if it were their nature, it'd be easy.
I also agree animals don't kill for no reason, animals kill to survive. Be it protecting their herd, or for reasons as simple as food, they are furthering their well being, using their nature to do it.
so it is in are nature to kill. Just like most things. people do not kill that often anymore but still if the day comes we would kill but every thing about us has changed you don't see people go to war over a simple thing like food anymore.
I don't believe that just because a person would do something, means that it is our nature to. A person would eat another person if it were absolutely necessary, some sooner than that, but that does not make it human nature to eat people.
I firmly believe that if it were human nature it would not be such a chore to do so, and it would occur more often than it does.
Well you have to take in to consideration that humans have evolved. Our dietary habits, our mental capacity, and our nature as well. We are past savagely needing to kill, when we can solve most problems with concise communication, can find something to eat, pre-killed and and in a can in a grocery store no further than a mile away, and have loads of entertainment online in lieu of killing for sport.
You are conflating the capacity for killing with the action of killing. There are few if any human beings who lack the capacity for killing; it is an entirely natural possibility within the range of human behavior, and animal behavior generally.
I argue that just because we have the capacity to do so, that it is not apart of our nature. Would you say cannibalism is also apart of our nature? Since I'm sure most humans would eat another to survive. Or how about performing acts against our principles? Since most humans would too do that to survive.
I am sure that killing is apart of are nature and after we kill that person we were to eat him. if that was the reason to kill him for and even if that was not the reason. I think we would have eaten some of him and use the left overs as bait.
Well apparently one thing does. Our lack of a need to kill. Most people, as I said in my initial argument do not need to kill, be it for sustenance, to end a dispute, or for entertainment, since we have these things in plenty.
Did you read anything I typed? Since we came on earth we have adapted. We were born in the mud and just like any animal we had to kill to survive, then we evolved and were no longer in need of that nature. It dropped out of our nature.
You are insisting that because humans can, and some do, kill that is our nature, but insist that it is not.
I gave examples that some humans, eat other people, that does not make cannibalism our nature, some humans are incestuous that does not make incest our nature, some humans are pedophiles, zoophiliacs, necrophilacs, and the list goes on.
Are you seriously trying to convince me that human nature is to have sex with dead, children, and animals and we are all, gay, straight, red, white and blue and every other conceivable thing any human has done ever? Get real.
like I said it is in are nature we will always have it. It just does not evolve out of us. Just like they say that animal is nice now but it can turn on you. And no matter how much you make that animal better. Deep inside it. It still has that nature to kill you.
So it is also in our nature to eat our children, rape our pets, make masks of the flesh of our ancestors, and any other twisted thing any human has ever done ever, is basically what you're saying?
I am not saying that. but you are talking about personality or religion. But in us all we have nature that we were born with. what ever that nature is. it inside us and it may not show but inside us it still there.
Near the end I offered completely ridiculous examples of human actions, to see if you thought that those were human nature as well, I see now that was a mistake.
To gain some understanding let me ask you this.
Do you believe it is human nature to kill, because humans can? If that is not the reason, then why do you believe it is human nature to kill?
I don't say it is in human nature to kill, because humans can. I say it in are nature to kill for a reason. just like any other animal will kill for a reason.
Then you are arguing a different topic. It is nature to kill yes, it is not human nature to kill.
Nature has killings happen all the time, for reasons, including the ones I've given and certainly others. Yet human nature is different than that. I have said how human nature is different in how it takes some mental preparation to flat out kill anything with more sentience than a bug, and for some even that much sentience.
I am not talking about that. we don't always question should we kill or not. it apart of are nature to kill to survive just like anything. sometimes animals question should I kill or not. we are all animals. but we are different but we are still animals and it is in are nature to kill. should I kill or not. and sometimes I don't even question I just do it.
Thank you. You have said what, I was refraining from saying this whole argument, so as not to give my opposition too obvious of a hint to the true answer of killing and human nature.
You said, and I quote " it apart of are nature to kill to survive just like anything" The poor English aside, what you have basically said, is it is our nature to survive, and with that I agree. Human nature is founded on survival, killing not so much. Every human does what they can to survive all day, everyday, some try harder than others because of the circumstances they are in, yet not all of them choose to kill. Why is this? (Rhetorical question) The answer is because killing is not in our nature. if it was in our nature to kill, we would always kill, when our survival was threatened, yet most people will choose every option they can before choosing killing.
I sincerely hope you read this argument, because I do think it's one of my best.
just like I said we don't always kill because we question. will should I waste my time killing when I can have other people do it for me. people and animals will question do I need to kill they will try to find any reason not to kill. But when it all comes down to it. that it just you out there you will kill to survive. it was born in to us to kill how do you think we survive so long is because we kill. we don't need to kill a person walking down the street because we have food at home. other animals do not always have that they do not always have food at there home so they got to go out and kill.
You completely disregarded my argument, so after this one I will cease trying to prove what I know, to someone who refuses to accept it.
You have not shown me how an animal questions it's kills. However I can prove that no animal I know of, asides from humans, questions it's kills. namely any of the numerous animal or insect fights you can find online. I won't post a link because they are so numerous you can literally search it and find it within seconds. In any of these fights, nothing signifies an end to the battle, except for the death and total annihilation of one side of the fight. It's the reasons pumas attack smaller prey, when they need food, and always go for the neck, ready to kill instantly. it's the reasons boa constrictors lock on to it's enemy's vein and don't stop constricting until the pulse has stopped.
There I have completely defeated your point on animals questioning kills unless you can provide actual evidence, if you can not, do not bring it up again, because it's defeated.
You say humans kill to survive, in my last argument I defeated that point. I won't repeat it because the argument is literally directly above this one. How about reading it before retrying a point( with no evidence no less) that was pretty much entirely defeated.
You go on to tell me the difference between why humans kill and why animals, kill, reiterating a point I made in my very first argument (further evidence that this is fruitless because you aren't reading my arguments ble bloo blop bleep bleep did you catch that?) Yet you are neglecting that every human doesn't have these luxuries and still they don't all kill.
Last time I will repeat this, then no more. If killing was human nature, every human would kill when their survival was threatened, no one would look for any other way. We do, look for other ways that is, proving that we are not as savage as the side you are arguing for claims.
ok example animals don't always kill because they may not have the energy the same with us if you did not read my point. other example there are two animals they see some died food. they may kill over it they may not. they may intimidate each other until one gives up because he is out matched. they both live but one does not get the food. they do this because they don't want to risk hurt or geting killed. other example they may not need to kill because they can steal other died food from another animal. it could cause a fight but not most of the time because they question should I kill him and keep my food should I give up and find more. other example they question should I kill this animal walking by or should I keep eating the food I got of this tree so I don't get hurt or killed over more food I don't need. so fact animals don't just kill they question most of the time just like us.
Animals may not kill because they don't have energy is not valid. If they don't the energy they won't do anything, this is not mercy, this is lack of ability.
When you say two animals may see already dead food food, are you referring to prey that's already dead, and the two animals don't kill each other over it. Again this is not mercy. Lions naturally fight over a kill, their nature (outside of killing) is dominant. Tigers, on the other hand, do not, they will share it, that is their nature. So that example is dashed.
Before I continue, did you catch that absurd blip in my last argument?
Clearly you haven't. I asked you one simple question that I will now repeat "Did you find the silly blip in my last actual argument" and you refused to give me an answer. You just continued to spout your point, with no evidence, or with evidence that I put down.
Last time I will repeat this, then no more. If killing was human nature, every human would kill when their survival was threatened, no one would look for any other way. We do, look for other ways that is, proving that we are not as savage as the side you are arguing for claims.
your answer to that I never said we would never look anyother way I said we would question if there was another way just like any other animal. But if there was no other way we would kill because we were born that way just like anyother animal.
Copy paste ≠ read. The longest argument I wrote, has in it a small blip, that if you had read it, you would see was out of the ordinary, and after writing it, I even asked if you caught it. You neglected it, and my questions of it, three times, you are not reading my arguments, perhaps at best you are skimming.
You are at this point, embarrassing yourself, you could just as easily go back, read the argument, find anomaly, and tell it to me. you moron. I'll try again here's the anomaly cats grow on trees in Pennsylvania humor me and repeat this, or don't expect another reply.
animals 80% of the time question. I went to school study animals. I work out with wild. they fired me after they found out that I had sex with my dog. I know that they do question should I kill or not animals don't just kill anything they see. And they do not just go after smell prey. But it is still in them to kill if they need to just like us.
There I have completely defeated your point on animals questioning kills unless you can provide actual evidence, if you can not, do not bring it up again, because it's defeated.
for example animals don't kill they question do I need to kill this or should I save my energy on something easy to kill. we do the same why would I need to run after food when I can just wait and let it walk in to my trap. then kill it.
Could you please provide an example of an animal questioning whether or not to kill? A video, a peer reviewed article, anything. As sarcastic as this proposal is, it's just as sincere. I will be quite stumped to know that animals question killing, but as for now i do not believe you.
That capacity is an express part of our nature, whether it is actuated or not. If it were not in our nature then we would be incapable of doing it. This is also true for cannibalism and acting against our principles.
Correct, and my argument is that if something is a naturally occurring capacity within the human species then it is an aspect of our nature. You have presented absolutely no compelling for why we should consider such a natural capacity to be unnatural to the human condition.
Simply put I don't believe just because we can do something that it is our nature. I believe that if it is our nature it would come 'natural' to us. Killing doesn't come natural to most people.
You are ignoring circumstantial context entirely. It is wholly within the nature of most human beings to be capable of killing under certain circumstances (e.g. self defense, even revenge). That this part of our nature is not brought forth for most people in their lifetime is hardly an argument for it not being a part of our nature. Most people will not save the life of a drowning child because they will not find themselves in that context, but that does not mean it is not in the nature of most people to do so.
If it is only under circumstances that even 'most' humans will kill, why would it not make more sense to believe that it is human nature to push on and survive, rather than to kill? I offered to one other debater that in pressing situations humans will 'usually' look for ways to survive outside of killing, and will only resort to that as a last result and with guilt that remains forever.
That it may also be a prevailing attribute in human behavior to use killing as latter or final resort, that does not make the capacity for killing any less a part of human nature. That humans may feel guilt after killing also does not negate the naturalness of killing.
Again we're pushing and pulling, pitting opinion vs opinion, neither side proving anything more that what they believe to be true based on what's present. I think this debate is also done.
I agree. In fact, for every piece of writing that talks about how difficult it is to kill, and how difficult the aftermath can be, there is another pieces that talks about just how easy it is. Sometimes, the same piece will describe both how easy and difficult it is.
Not really. Sociologists have tried and tested that children are born with a sense of equality and unity. Adults are the ones responsible for teaching them how to be cruel.
Throughout history, genocides and persecutions are done out of need to destroy competitors, vengance or simply because they see themselves as superior creatures than their victims.
no it not adults. I don't think so. yes adults tell kids stuff but not all of it is wrong. how did the first humans on the earth know what to do. it was born in to them to kill. if they did not know to kill then how did they survive.
As social animals, it is embedded in our DNA to promote unity and equality. But due to ignorance, selfishness and greed, it is inevitable to have such a dark history.
All children are born with a kind heart but we learned how to be cruel as we get older
Really? Please do furnish us with these purported sociological tests and results.
Even were your claim true, that children may so easily be impressed upon with violent tendencies or capacity is indicative that killing and violence come naturally to human beings.
Please bear in mind that the act of killing and murder is different from predation.
As for your statement, yes, it is true. The sense of morality is something of nature. But the sense of cruelty is gained through nurture. There are plenty of tests done to prove it.
1. Starting with the "Emotional Feedback" where we are able to feel the emotion that we gave. It is proof that we humans are equipped with the tools to unite each other and form a society.
2. "Self Awareness". Being able to observe our individuality is one thing. But the ability to insert ourselves into the situation of others gave birth to the ability to feel guilt, pity, and sympathy
3. Act of Self Sacrifice. The emotion of Love came in many different forms but all of them has one similarity-placing others above yourself. In a biological sense, this does not make any sense but then you remembered, we are all a single species with similar goals-survival of our race. We were not born to enjoy life, but to die for others
Do not get me wrong, there is a reason why we need to learn how to be cruel. But my point stands. Every human on Earth are born with a good heart
then tell me this is every animal on Earth are born with a good heart. because if every human is born with a good heart then every animal born would have a good heart too
Pretty much yes. Notice how young animals can be so trusting and harmless?
Being a social animal equates to being an animal that follows certain conducts of morality in order to survive. We all started at square 1. We are all good, until life thought us the meaning of survival
I am well aware of the distinctions; this debate pertains to killing and not predation.
I again ask for your actual evidence that positive morality is a product of nature and cruelty a product of nurture. Simply observing that humans have some positive attributes neither proves that those attributes are a product purely or primarily of nature nor that negative attributes are not.
The first source represents summarized extractions from Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man. Our understanding of evolution has advanced considerably since 1871 when the theory was first posited.
The second source actually observes that present research more strongly indicates for a complex confluence of positive and negative attributes in babies, rather than a simplistic and absolute positive morality. Excerpts that you may have missed:
"[Warneken] feels that the picture is more complicated, with broadly pro-social impulses competing with, rather than develomentally predating, selfish ones."
"3-month-olds like people of their own race more than others, experiments have shown, and 1-year-olds prever native speakers of those of another tongue. Yes, a baby prefers the good guy - unless the bad one, like the baby, eats graham crackers. If the good guy is a green-bean eater, forget it. Babies, in addition, are big fans of punishment."
The main idea is that we evolve. Our understanding of how that process works has become significantly more nuanced. This includes developments in research like the ones I referenced proving my point, from the article you cited. The evidence is not on your side on this matter.
I am done here. There really is no point in attempting to debate with someone who denies that scientific developments over the past 150 years are relevant and then offers evidence for the other side.
No really. Decades had pass since the first publication of "On the Origin of Species" and yet, its ideas has remained the same. New ideas were added but practically nothing was removed and disproved. So in the end, it's still in the same root.
And neighter did the paragraphs that you cheery pick has changed anything on our table. Your farewell sounds edgy. But whatever.
Several species of herbivores are naturally friendly creatures.
yes mostly all show a naturally friendly behavior but still until they are threaten.
You don't know the percentage of the human species that actually
have that mentality. It needs to be a high percentage for your argument to hold.
we have evolved but deep in side us we kill. it does not leave you. just like a animal they can be so friendly but they still have that killer in side of them.
your right I did not proved that was there because scientists studys proved that it was there but either way it still there.
Yes we do sometimes kill ourselves on the inside, but that has nothing to do with this.
I did not say that.
Most of the time they will run away.
ok your arguing with a person that worked with lions and tiger and wolves and other dangerous animals for 2 years. they don't most of the time run away
ok your arguing with a person that worked with lions and tiger and wolves and other dangerous animals for 2 years. they don't most of the time run away
And you are referring to animals that actually kill as a part of their nature and not all animals are like that.
Lions, tigers and wolves are all natural predators, so they kill to survive, so you did refer to those animals.
And if you are just going to keep repeating the same thing over and over, then don't bother responding, because that's mostly what you've been doing here. Repeating the same thing, but just wording it differently. Eets n us! Eets n us! Beeleave eet becawse eye say sow! end nut becawse eye cunt divide a ballad raisin!
I just noticed that "Side: it is not in us" has a persistent value (I cannot leave it blank). Assume it to be blank as I disagree with the basis which form the argument sides.
Assuming there is only one "human nature" is not a logical standpoint - at least to draw any sort of valuable conclusion for a question so rich in ambiguity (imo) as this. The factors are many and often complex (environment, trauma, rebellion, religion, extreme circumstances, etc). It's instinctive if it means survival (fear, hunger, etc) so we might call those instances of killing the natural order of evolutionary biology (still ambiguous for my taste). My overall point is the seemingly limitless variety of perspectives existent in our collective minds on this Earth pretty much insists that circumstances so extreme will happen regularly (based more or less on the law of large numbers/averages). Harm reduction is the key.
