The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Claudz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Arguments involving moral standards are weak and useless.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
blackhawk1331
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,825 times Debate No: 13856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

blackhawk1331

Con

I intend to prove that arguing a topic based on moral standards is a bad idea, and should not be done.

Moral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
Standard - something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example
Opinion - a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterThese are the definitions that will be used in this debate.
They can be found here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

First of all, moral standards are weak arguments because they are not set in stone.
As the definitions show, morals are the difference between right and wrong. This clearly can vary. In World War 2, Hitler thought it was right to kill off everyone who wasn't Aryan. Obviously, almost everyone else disagreed with him. This is because the Axis Powers(Hitler's Group) and the Allied Forces(America, Britain, etc.) had different opinions on right and wrong. A standard is something that can be based on custom or opinions. I will use World War 2 again. Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to eliminate all who weren't Aryan. Since they were in control, this became the standard goal of Nazi Germany. The Allies, however, disagreed. This was an overwhelming public opinion. Therefore, the standard goal of the Allies was to stop the Axis Powers.

Next, morals are opinions. Since opinions are views formed by a person, they don't have to be shared. Due to this fact, morals can't be used because they might not be shared by both sides. This is obvious in a debate I took part in because I said yes, hunting should remain legal, but my opponent said no, it shouldn't remain legal. We had different views based upon our opinions. Our opinions had facts, and so they did become useable. The moral factor, however, did NOT always have facts. I had reasons why my morals could be accepted, but my opponent didn't. Regardless of facts or lack of, both moral arguments were very weak.

Finally, moral standards are weak arguments because standards can vary. For example, in China it is normal to eat dog, but most Americans wouldn't dream of eating dog.

I would like to thank my future opponent in advance for accepting this debate.
Claudz

Pro

I have noticed something of an anomaly regarding your title. You are against 'arguments involving moral standards are weak and useless', but your argument is clearly Pro, which makes no sense. Please inform me what side I am on, as I am confused on that matter.
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Con

Sorry, I meant to pick Pro. I just realized my error. You will be Con. I guess R3 will be the only round of rebuttals. We'll skip closing statements. For R2, just respond to my original points, and post your own arguments.

I extend my original points.

Sorry for my error.
Claudz

Pro

Claudz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Con

For my closing statements, I'm just going to repeat my R1 statements.

First of all, moral standards are weak arguments because they are not set in stone.
As the definitions show, morals are the difference between right and wrong. This clearly can vary. In World War 2, Hitler thought it was right to kill off everyone who wasn't Aryan. Obviously, almost everyone else disagreed with him. This is because the Axis Powers(Hitler's Group) and the Allied Forces(America, Britain, etc.) had different opinions on right and wrong. A standard is something that can be based on custom or opinions. I will use World War 2 again. Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to eliminate all who weren't Aryan. Since they were in control, this became the standard goal of Nazi Germany. The Allies, however, disagreed. This was an overwhelming public opinion. Therefore, the standard goal of the Allies was to stop the Axis Powers.

Next, morals are opinions. Since opinions are views formed by a person, they don't have to be shared. Due to this fact, morals can't be used because they might not be shared by both sides. This is obvious in a debate I took part in because I said yes, hunting should remain legal, but my opponent said no, it shouldn't remain legal. We had different views based upon our opinions. Our opinions had facts, and so they did become useable. The moral factor, however, did NOT always have facts. I had reasons why my morals could be accepted, but my opponent didn't. Regardless of facts or lack of, both moral arguments were very weak.

Finally, moral standards are weak arguments because standards can vary. For example, in China it is normal to eat dog, but most Americans wouldn't dream of eating dog.
Claudz

Pro

Claudz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Straight con vote because of forfeits.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
response?
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
S**t I just realized that I chose the wrong side of this debate. I meant to be pro because I believe they ARE weak and useless.
Claudz, if you want to be Con and support that they are useful, then say so in comments, otherwise, I am going to have to forfeit the rest of this debate and start a new one were I actually choose the right side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
blackhawk1331ClaudzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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