Instigator / Pro
4
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#4330

Most Humans Are "Evil"

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
0

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Full resolution: On balance, most Human beings can be said to be an immoral agent, or unable to meet a "moral" standard. We will debate what is moral and immoral, and if the Human Being can be said to be Immoral in most cases.

Con must argue that most human beings are "Good", and establish some standard for being "good".

Round 1
Pro
#1
My argument is simple yet tricky to disprove. According to research, even 2021 which had the highest number of people giving to charity only saw 40% people give to charity. Based on this statistics, if we have a moral obligation to give to charity, then most people would be “evil” based on this standard for selfishness and moral. 

Thus I would like to prove there is a moral obligation to help those living in severe poverty, but as the link above shows most people are too selfish to fulfill this obligation. It is self evident to assert that things like poverty, famine and disease cause suffering and problems for people. Under most circumstances, for sake of survival, there is no person who would want to suffer under this poverty and lack of resources. Humans naturally go for survival and desire to avoid such things, and many countries even strive to improve conditions to prove free education and even housing some times. 

Therefore, unless con can prove otherwise, the natural desires to avoid suffering should apply to the regular persons. Then, let us move onto our moral obligation to help. It takes remarkably little effort to raise someone out of poverty — the Wikipedia article says that Poverty is $35/day, while some first world country like US would have minimum wage of $15/hour in some locations, thus a mere two hours of work to raise someone out of poverty. To compare it to the suffering situation. Imagine a child was drowning and it only took you two hours of work to save his life. When those in poverty and starving, would this not be very similar to our situation here? Yet, most people would not give to charity to raise the people out of the situation. 

There are some objections with the idea that other people are helping so you might not need to help. But that assumes that the other people are rescuing all those in poverty. The problem is still ongoing and there seems to always be someone who is needlessly suffering or even dying. 
Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
#3
extend
Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
Unfortunate.
Con
#6
Forfeited