[Serious] The Great American Think Off

[Angrboda]

Which is more important: to win, or to play by the rules? Arguments either way will be put to the test at the Great American Think-Off, an unusual contest hosted by a cultural center in the small town of New York Mills, Minn. The competition — which annually poses a philosophical question, then invites essay submissions from anywhere in the world — culminates this year on June 12 with a debate in the town’s school auditorium featuring four finalists, none of whom is a professional philosopher.

Except for last summer, when it was canceled because of the pandemic, the contest has been held in the west-central Minnesota town since 1993. During that first contest, then known as the Great Midwestern Think-Off, the question was whether the inherent nature of humankind is good or evil. No one won the debate that night, and the question — at least in the eyes of those attending the event — remained unanswered. It was asked again in 2012, when Adam Bright, a writer from Syracuse, N.Y., argued that we’re all inherently evil and won the debate.

(Washington Post)

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

[Belacqua]

Which is more important: to win, or to play by the rules?

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

In an essay, first you'd have to define "to win." Then you'd have to decide which rules, since there may be ethical rules which are different from society's laws. 

Probably the winning essay would say that with the correct set of rules, following those rules properly would be the same as winning.

[Foxaèr]

I haven't read it, but I agree with Adam Bright.

[Brian37]

Which is more important: to win, or to play by the rules? Arguments either way will be put to the test at the Great American Think-Off, an unusual contest hosted by a cultural center in the small town of New York Mills, Minn. The competition — which annually poses a philosophical question, then invites essay submissions from anywhere in the world — culminates this year on June 12 with a debate in the town’s school auditorium featuring four finalists, none of whom is a professional philosopher.

Except for last summer, when it was canceled because of the pandemic, the contest has been held in the west-central Minnesota town since 1993. During that first contest, then known as the Great Midwestern Think-Off, the question was whether the inherent nature of humankind is good or evil. No one won the debate that night, and the question — at least in the eyes of those attending the event — remained unanswered. It was asked again in 2012, when Adam Bright, a writer from Syracuse, N.Y., argued that we’re all inherently evil and won the debate.

(Washington Post)

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Evolution doesn't care if you use force or cooperation. It does not care if you use cruelty or compassion. Unfortunately both can and do work. 

So if one is going to lean to empathy and avoiding cruelty, I lean to playing by the rules minus absolute power.  

But, in human history, there are powers that have cruel intent that sell utopias as "playing by the rules". Authoritarians like Hitler and Stalin preyed upon the authoritarian rule, where they sold everyone the idea of blind loyalty, everything would be better for those who supported them.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Humans are inherently Amoral . It's our actions and their effects that make us good or evil.