The Instigator
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Action determines whether a person is good or bad (Video Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,435 times Debate No: 15461
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (8)

 

BangBang-Coconut

Con

Rules!
round 1 is for acceptance, rounds 2-5 are for debate!

All arguments must be in video format

No semantics!

I await my opponent's acceptance!
TUF

Pro

I accept this debate and look forward to a fun experience!
Debate Round No. 1
BangBang-Coconut

Con

http://www.youtube.com...

And for clarification these are my contentions-

1. There isn't a universal definition of Good and Bad

2. Many people completely reject the idea of good and bad.

3. All action is neutral, as action is not something that has any kind of moral obligation to it.
TUF

Pro

In case you didn't catch them in the video, my arguments were:

C1: Without action words are nothing.

C2: Good actions, are what make the concept of morality even possible in the first place.

C3: Everything we do is made up of good and bad actions.
Debate Round No. 2
BangBang-Coconut

Con

So first off, I apologize for my epic fail in terms of linking the video into my last speech. So my round one video is on top, and round two is on bottom.
TUF

Pro

Nope, turns out the new web cam didn't help the lag at all. Sorry about that guys! I tried haha.
Debate Round No. 3
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I thought both guys did a good job with video format, especially in not stumbling or garbling their speeches. Both could improve by slowing down and using pauses to add emphasis. Something like: <pause>Contention 2: Up is Down<pause>

Try this out: "There is no agreement on what a chair is. Some people call something a bench or a stool while others claim it is a chair. I natural tree stump might be thought to be a chir, while other think it is not a chair. Rocks can be used as chairs. Because there is no agreed upon definition, clearly chairs do not exist." Nah. Absolute morality exists, because it is genetically determined behavior, but it's exact bounds are undefined. Some parts of it have near-universal agreement, however. Other parts are culturally dependent. Loyalty to one's tribe is part of morality, so that is the complicating factor.

Pro accepted moral relativism in theory, but he nonetheless argued for certain aspects of universal morality. I think Pro was closer to the truth than Con. Past that, Pro argued that good and bad were at least culturally defined, so the words ave meaning in practice. I think that's an adequate argument to give meaning to the resolution. The debate was then whether actions show moral intent. Again, that there are difficult cases or borderline case does not invalidate the generality that there are many cases where actions are reasonably judged good or bad.

A close debate, I give the edge to Pro. There is no category for the quality of presentation, but I would give the edge to Con, who spoke a little slower and less monotone.

For future video debates, it might be good to have limits of the lengths of speeches. I'm thinking three rounds with 5 min, 10 min, and 5 mins, or maybe 4 x 5 minutes. Perhaps numbered references could be given in the text, and style points awarded in the S&G category. Interesting stuff.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
Fight fight fight fight!!
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
@ hello-orange stop acting like your all high and mighty. I didn't know there was a rule saying we couldn't have an opinion. I don't care if he keeps his vote. But you should mind your own business.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@TUF don't aruge with RFD's
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
"Pro needed to show that the concepts of good and bad existed independent of human constructs"

Lol my whole argument was that morality existed as a whole construct, while minor concepts were confined to groups. Basically my goal was to prove that there was indeed a universal moral basis, while only certain issues can be dis-puted, a majority agree upon what makes a person good or bad. Look to the Ghandi/Hitler argument.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
web debates are awesome, I just wish I could listen to them (at work, no speakers allowed).
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Thankyou! We both put alot of time and effort into it :)
Posted by cindle 3 years ago
cindle
Interesting debate guys!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@TUF lol I meant in our next video we do like this :D But yeah, that's a good Idea!
I'm working on my rebuttal right now, it'll be a minute.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Or we could just do a seperate video for cross ex and just post it in the next round along with your rebuttals ha. Its up to you brotha.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No semantics! - and yet Con was all semantics with the assertion that actions do not determine morality as morality is without meaning
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: counterbomb dmitri Nvm, xerge took care of it
Vote Placed by Xerge 2 years ago
Xerge
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Dimmitri...
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bombing stupid votes.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 3 years ago
Zealous1
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: How do I say this? Con proved it better. There.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately showed that as there is no universally agreed upon definition of correct moral behavior, morality has not been proven to exist outside of social circles and thus nothing can be determined to be good or bad. Pro needed to show that the concepts of good and bad existed independent of human constructs and failed at doing this. Therefore arguments go to con. Conduct was great on both sides and s/g does not really apply. Also since this was an abstract topic, sources were not needed.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BangBang-CoconutTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No semantics! - and yet Con was all semantics with the assertion that actions do not determine morality as morality is without meaning