1. Is man (really, Cain should be using the term human here) inherently good or evil? Or is the issue more complex than this binary?

2. What acts define us as humans?

3. Do you agree with, disagree with, or qualify the author's (Will Cain) point of view?

2) Acts which define us as humans are the random acts of kindness we commit out of our hearts. The pencil we lend, the compliment we give, the white lie to spare feelings, and the truth that someone needs to hear. It is our intuition and our ability to have a sense of what "feels right" which makes us human.

3) I agree with Will Cain in some respects but not in others. I believe he is correct in saying that if man we truly evil we would have perished long ago. I also agree in that there certainly is good in the world such as the man in the cowboy hat. I disagree that it is as simple as this. While his optimistic outlook is uplifting and gives us hope it also glazes over some of the darker aspects of human nature. There are so many factors it cannot be this simple. Genetics, home life, experiences, current situation, and things taught to us by our gaurdians since being brought into this world all impact out judgement, actions, and our over all nature. To be human is to be somewhere inbetween.

something out of the ordinary, but that doesn't define us as good or evil. Sometimes we can even do something 

kind for someone like compliment them or just be nice to them for no reason. We are human and react in human ways

that there is such a small fraction of us out of the whole population that are "evil" in a way.

2. The acts that define us as being human are that we get upset and react in certain ways or we are happy and do small

acts of kindness. Because we are human we aren't perfect and make mistakes.

3. I agree with Will Cain's point of view of saying that there is such a small fraction of people in the whole world's population that are in a way, "evil." Just because one group of people are doing bad things like terrorism doesn't define the human race as being evil. At the same time just because one person in a situation is helping injured people, like the man in the cowboy hat, doesn't mean the human race is good. So, man is more complex than just being good or evil.

2. What we do everyday defines us.

3. I do agree with the author. Only a small amount of the people in the world are malicious. But their actions only should define them, not the kind people. So the evil people actions don't define the whole human race. Only affects them.

2) Throughout history we have used the phrase "they're only human" as an excuse. Are we being lazy for letting out emotions control our actions, showing weakness in times of adversity, even giving up after being pushed to the limit? I don't think so. To be human is to have a twisting, turning, and sometimes bumpy road from point A and a point B. A destination or a goal is what keeps us moving. Unlike the gods in ancient mythology our path from A to B isn't solved with a simple lighting bolt to our enemies. And unlike animals we are able to understand and are coherent of the emotions and morals that drive our personal path. So it may be that most of the goals we have will be a winding road that seems like it is leading nowhere, but our ability to recognize hardship, though we may give up or even persevere, is what makes us different than all the other things out there.

3) I don't really agree with his point of view. His opinions are his own and I respect them but I think that if he wanted to really take an in depth view of human nature his news article would be much longer. Also to take most of your ideas and themes from one event in our entire history seems a little lame. If his point was to describe his findings of good and evil within the events of the Boston Marathon he should have made that his title. The title "Is Man Inherently Good or Evil" is a little misleading. Though I am not one to judge his own opinions and thoughts I do wish he would have looked at his question with a different approach.

2. I don't think any acts can define us as humans. I believe it is up to how we define ourselves by the choices we make and actions we uphold. We can either decide to be the best version of ourselves or the version of ourself that took the wrong pathway or made the wrong decisions.

3. I have to say that I do agree with Cain's view. The light and good will always outnumber the dark and evil. As he mentioned, we would not be here if we were inherently evil or if the dark over shadowed the light.

2. I don't know exactly what defines us as humans besides what we look like however it must have something to do with the fact that we need to survive under any means necessary whether that be scavenging for resources or taking them from others.

3. I have no idea whether i agree with him or anything he said as you can probably tell I have strong feelings about this topic and couldn't really agree with anyone but I do think he does make some good points

2. We as humans are defined what we do and don't do. For example, a man goes to jail for robbing a bank and another man does not because he did not rob a bank. These 2 men are not good or bad but their actions have given them a neutral and bad connotation or reputation. Actions speak louder than words.

3. I agree with the author when he says that there is much more good than bad. However, just a little bad can do a lot of damage. Similar to a spark of fire, Cain writes that it doesn't matter if it is one or one hundred it is just a fraction of the population and will always be there but just lurking around the corner. It is important to be alert without living in fear.