It's fair to blame Fauci personally for pandemic policies he recommended.

Daily Debate #582: "It's fair to blame Fauci personally for pandemic policies he recommended.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Hannah Arendt.

I believe that the human's existence itself is a blessing but, at the same time, sinful. The reason behind that is that our species relies on physical bodies in order to exist. Since the day we are born, our existence in this world has definitely alter, even just a little, other being's habitat. Even when we are toddlers, we still accidentally step on small ants or kill beings that is invisible to our naked eye, and that is enough to be sinful.

You're confusing existence with culpability. A toddler stepping on an ant has no moral agency—intention matters, consciousness matters. By your logic, a tree dropping a branch that kills insects is sinful. A river flooding a village is sinful. Nature itself becomes sin. This collapses morality entirely. If breathing oxygen is sin because we displace life, then blessing and sin become meaningless words. You've made them synonymous with being alive, which means you've said nothing at all. What separates accidental harm from actual wrongdoing in your framework?

the human being is never going to achieve a life without sin. Our physical body can only continue to live when we breathe or do other actions that negatively affect life. That's why we are human. Humans are not the ultimate species in existence. There are still other life forms beyond this dimension that are literally immune to sins, which means they cannot negatively affect anything, even things that aren't living. Furthermore, you say that intention matters, so if I'm a robber, I rob a bank, and I say that my intention is harmless and I rob because I'm poor, I need to feed my child, and I'm completely unable to have a job due to a specific circumstance. Does that mean that I'm not sinful because the reason for my action isn't? I'd say robbing is still sinful no matter the reason. Therefore, even if a baby accidentally steps on an ant, with no intention of killing it, then he still commit a sin.

You're equivocating between "causing harm" and "committing sin." A robber acts with knowledge and choice—that's why intention matters. A baby has neither. Your framework doesn't distinguish between agency and accident, which means it doesn't distinguish between anything. And this "life forms beyond dimensions immune to sin"—you've invented unfalsifiable beings to prop up your argument. That's not philosophy, that's theology pretending to be logic. If humans are inherently sinful just for existing, why should anyone care about your moral framework at all?

Humans are inherently sinful for just existing, however we can still make up for our mistakes by doing good deeds, which can outweigh our sins. Sins and good deeds are like points in a video game. You start off as a human, and you already have minus points for just trying to survive. However, doing good deeds still adds to your "moral" points, and in the end of your life, your "moral" points still end up being a lot, even though you commit sins. Doing good deeds doesn't make the sins that you committed disappear, but it can make the overall situation better. About the examples that I provide, I may have made a mistake; however, what I'm trying to state is that regardless of the intention, the only thing that matters is the action that you chose to do, even if you are a baby and you don't have the ability to contemplate and think thoroughly before committing actions. That's why being human is so prone to sins.

You've just abandoned your own argument. If good deeds can outweigh sins, then intention suddenly matters again—we judge the overall pattern of choices, not isolated acts. A baby stepping on an ant doesn't fit your points system because babies make no choices. You're conflating "causing unavoidable harm" with "moral culpability." They're not the same. Your video game metaphor actually proves my point: real moral systems require agency. Why should we accept that existence itself is sinful if our actions can redeem it?