Humans are naturally inclined to being evil rather than good

Pro is basing his reasoning from three main areas: 1. A beggar video (listed). 2. The humans' relationship with other species and the environment. 3. A study by Paul Eckman Pro further states, by "evil" he does not mean "evil", but means "selfish, greedy, deceitful, careless, etc. "; For the purpose of this debate we will make evil synonymous with the other terms prior to "etc" since Pro offered these as support. I in no way advocate this position outside of this debate. I still stand in negation to the modified resolution: Humans are naturally inclined to being selfish, greedy, deceitful, and careless. Due to space limitations, I will focus on selfish, greedy, and deceitful. I do not doubt for a moment that some people fit the bill in regards to all the traits Pro listed, but the resolution is that humans are naturally inclined to act in such a way. I disagree. In our daily lives we get comfortable. We tend to focus on items that benefit us and our families and expect others to do the same. When tragedy strikes, however, we are reminded how our daily lives are not all that matters. Examples include the enormous efforts made in just my lifetime. 1. Hurricane Hugo relief 2. 9/11 3. Hurricane Katrina 4. Haitian earthquake relief These are just a few. In addition to these relief efforts, the Jerry Lewis telethon has helped millions. And the character limit on this debate does not allow me to list the plethora of organizations whose purpose is to help those in need. Pro enlists the aid of a video showing con artists trying to make money by relying on other people's sympathies. If people were truly selfish then begging would not exist as it would not be profitable. The clips show people ignoring the con artist, but the producers never tell us if the people did so because they suspected foul play or were unsympathetic. Many of us work in areas populated with beggars. We know some of the tricks. I walk by them everyday and do not give money as I see them at the bar two blocks away (one of them worked there for a short time). Help is available and giving change is not the best way to help. The video seemed to upset Pro, so I recommend this one (top clip) . http://www.youtube.com... Over 50 million views on YouTube. No scams, just hugs. In reference to beggars, we should not substitute skepticism with the traits Pro put forward. When my neighborhood was built, we had con artists coming to our door claiming all kinds of trouble and I did not help one of them. I knew most of the cons, but I also had others come by and welcome us and others needed help with little things like jumping off a car or changing a tire. We were all willing to help, but not willing to fall for a scam. Hint: do not buy magazines from the college age students; this is a scam. Now, what about the deceitful people praying on our sympathies? Pro linked a blog citing a book concerning the number of lies people tell, but I cannot see the study, or the methodology used. The author in question is associated with the show "Lie to Me" and I do not see a study anywhere. I cannot counter what is not there. Does the author mean we exaggerate? Flat out lie? Cheat? I don't know. I'm sorry but this point is not substantiated by the sources offered. Environment: Pro is unimpressed with humans in relation to the environment, but he links a blog that shows a number of laws in place to protect the environment and other species, specifically sea turtles and manatees. The blog entry gives tips and shows why certain precautions are made in reference to the environment. The entry has no listed author, but outlines several methods humans have devised to live with different oceanic life. If we are truly selfish, why bother? The author's rhetoric is strong at the end, but he/she is determined to help and efforts are being rewarded. One need not look far for support of sea turtles: . http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov... . http://myfwc.com... . http://www.fws.gov... Or Manatees: . http://www.homesafe.com... . http://www.theinsite.org... (You too can see the human impacts and help as a human) We love these guys! They have federal laws protecting them and organizations who fight for them. I cannot see how any of these facts help Pro's case. We do have an impact on the environment, but we have put protections in place which cost money and time and yet we still do it. I cannot align these actions with Pro's resolution. The facts do not line up. Pro listed the number of species we destroyed. I want a source. I did not see one in the blog. I will note that if such a source exists I will counter with the number of species we have saved. But at this point, I have no need as I cannot evaluate material not offered. Pro offered three points to support the resolution. I have countered two and ask for further support for one. If we focus on the bad traits some humans espouse then Pro's position seems correct, but does the bad outweigh the good? No. The greedy, the deceitful, the selfish are canceled out by efforts of the majority. If everyone looked out only for themselves as Pro claims then the deceitful would have no victims and would not exist. We, as a species, tend to groups and some wish to take advantage of our goodwill, but Pro has not offered support that the deceitful, greedy, selfish people are in higher numbers. At this point, the resolution does not hold.