The Instigator
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
CIIReligion
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 10 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,187 times Debate No: 30085
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (66)
Votes (10)

 

Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

This debate will be centered around the 'Argument for Morality' as stated by CIIR. This argument has two premises and a conclusion.

P1: Morals come from experience.
P2: Common sense comes with experience.
C: Morality is common sense.

The first round of this debate is for acceptance. The next four rounds will be constant debating. General rules of conduct should be followed.

Vale.
CIIReligion

Pro

I accept the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Introduction
In this debate, I will be defending three contentions.

(1) CIIR's argument for morality cannot be true if two things that come from the same source don't have to equal each other.

(2) Two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.

(3) From one and two, the argument is invalid.

Contention #1
The logic of this argument can be stated in a different way.

P1: X comes from A.
P2: Z comes from A.
C: X is equal to Z.

Simply replace A with experience, X with morality, and Z with common sense. Now that you have done this, you can see the assumption of Pro's argument: two things that have the same source must be equal to each other. If I can prove that this is not the case, then the argument falls apart, because it is left without any basis.

Contention #2
I have thought of several paradoy arguments to show why two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.

P1: Morality comes with experience.
P2: Proper toilet use comes with experience.
C: Morality is proper toilet use.

P1: Understanding of math comes with experience.
P2: Morality comes with experience.
C: Understanding math is the same thing as morality.

P1: Using a computer comes with experience.
P2: Morality comes with experience.
C: Using a computer is the same thing as morality.

Pro's argument is a classic fallacy. The fact that two things share something in common does not mean they are equal to each other.

Contention #3
If two things with the same source do not have to be equal to each other, then Pro's argument fails. Two things with the same source do not have to be equal to each other. Therefore, the argument is false.

Vale.


CIIReligion

Pro

It does not matter whether or not they can equal each other for the argument to be valid. I can do the same with all theological and philosophical arguments and make them all invalid.

Con has not given why Morality does not equal Common Sense and therefore the refutation of the argument is invalid. Also, putting the same refultation into 3 contentions is redundant and does not make the first argument any more valid.

Morality and Common Sence are both learned from Experience so my argument stands as valid. It is not fallacious.
Debate Round No. 2
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Introduction
In R1, I put forward three contentions that I would defend in this debate. Let's go over each contention and see how Pro responded to them.

Contention #1
Pro provides no response to my first contention. At this point of the debate, we can consider this contention upheld.

Contention #2
In response to this, Pro argues that it doesn't mater if morality can equal common sense. His argument would be valid either way, he claims. This is an overtly false statement. If morality does not equal common sense, then the conclusion of his argument is invaid, and therefore the entire argument.

Instead of proving that morality is equal to common sense, he simply argues that it's not part of the argument. Anybody who read the conclusion of the argument can see right through this. Verbatim, it states that 'Morality is common sense.' This is another way of saying that morality is equal to common sense. Pro has to justify his, and if he can't, the argument is toast.

Contention #3
There is no attempt to respond to the third contention of my argument.

Response to Other Statements by Pro
'Con has not given why Morality does not equal Common Sense and therefore the refutation of the argument is invalid.'

This debate is not about whether morality is equal to common sense. Rather, it's about the validity of a particular argument in favor of that idea. We shouldn't confuse the two with each other, as they are very different things.

Pro also confuses the burden of proof in this debate. Since he is taking the Pro position, he must prove that his argument is correct.

'Also, putting the same refultation into 3 contentions is redundant and does not make the first argument any more valid.'

This isn't a response to my refutation. It is merely a criticism of my debating style.

'Morality and Common Sence are both learned from Experience so my argument stands as valid.'

Here, we have another instance of Pro misunderstanding what this debate is about. The resolution is not 'morality and common sense are both learned from experience'. This debate is about his argument that attempts to show that morality and common sense are the same thing. We could both agree that morality and common sense are learned from experience, and it would have no bearing on the resolution.

'This will be interesting if Con can actually come up with a fallacy for this argument other than changing words around.' (In the comments section of the debate.)

It's called the fallacy of association.

Concluding Statement
Pro completely leaves my first and third contention alone. He answers the second contention, but only with claims that are easily answered. Aside from that, we have criticisms of my debating style, and not much else. Back to Pro.

Vale.
CIIReligion

Pro

Con is correct that this debate is about the validity of my argument, but if he is going to prove it invalid, he will have to do better than asking me to repeat myself by refuting 3 redundant contentions. Con is also correct that the BoP is on me, but con has not refuted the actual argument yet. Instead he is trying to show fallacy where there isn't any. If con wants to prove that my argument is invalid, he needs to prove that my argument is completely false. If morality is not equal to Common Sense, then con must provide why.

I can provide nothing more until then.
Debate Round No. 3
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Contention #1
CIIR has not provided anything to respond to in regards to this contention.

Contention #2
In R2, CIIR argued that 'morality = common sense' had nothing to do with his argument. I showed that he cannot attempt to separate his argument from the idea that morality is equal to common sense, because his conclusion states that to be the case. CIIR did not respond to this in his most recent round.

CIIR's comments in this round raise more questions than answers. He argues that I haven't disproved his argument. Why is this the case? He argues I am pointing out fallacies that he hasn't made. Why is this the case? He makes claims about my arguments and then moves on to the next claim, never justifying any of them. If CIIIR wants the audience to think that I have not refuted his argument, then he should show why I haven't. If CIIR wants the audience to think I am pointing out fallacies that don't apply, then he should show it. Instead, he simply leaves us with bare assertions.

CIIR stated that I must prove morality is not equal to common sense. I have to do no such thing. I only have to prove that the reasoning he uses to get to that conclusion is fallacious and unsound. We are not debating the conclusion, but the methods CIIR used to reach that conclusion. If we were debating the conclusion, then I would have written the resolution as 'Morality is not equal to common sense'.

CIIR restates his criticism of my debating style, calling my contentions 'redundant'. This is not so. All of the contentions must be proven in order for the others to make sense. Consider the first and second contention.

'(1) CIIR's argument for morality cannot be true if two things that come from the same source don't have to equal each other.'

'(2) Two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.'

If the first contention is not true, then the second one is irrelevant. If your argument has nothing to do with the idea that morality equals common sense, then there is no sense in arguing to the contrary. That's why these are two separate contentions.

Now consider the third contention:

'(3) From one and two, the argument is invalid.'

If this contention is not true, then CIIR's argument would stand. Far from being redundant, these contentions are nessecary parts of my argument that must be individually proven.

Besides, even if my contentions are redundant, it has nothing to do with their truth. It is only a criticism of my debating style. Sadly, CIIR, that is not the topic of this debate.

Contention #3
There is no attempt to respond to this.

Concluding Statement
I would like to remind the audience of a few important facts.

(1)I named the fallacy that CIIR's argument makes, as he challenged me to do in the comments. CIIR never proved that this fallacy didn't apply. Instead, he made the bare assertions I talked about earlier.

(2) My first and third contentions still remain untouched.

(3) Even if you find my criticisms of the argument unconvincing, it is not a reason to vote for Pro. Since the burden of proof is on him, he still has to prove his argument to be true. It is not enough to make a negative case for an argument. In order to prove it to be true, you have to make a positive case as well.

Vale.
CIIReligion

Pro

If my argument is a Fallacy of Association and this is the claim made by the Con, then it is up to Con to prove that it is such. As Con has not proven that Morality and Common Sense are not equal, my argument is still valid.

As for his 1st & 3rd contention, They state nothing that the 2nd contention did not state other than the examples given. I do not need to repeat myself.

I do not need contentions, as I am the Pro for this debate, I did not initiate it. Con has the ball in his court to prove that my argument is invalid, not by stating it is a fallacy of association, but to prove that Morality is not equal to Common Sense. This is the only way to claim it is not a valid argument. If and when I actually get a refutation that I can argue against, I will, but until then, no refutation has been made that will allow me to directly debate the validity of my argument.

As it stands, my argument is valid, because it has not been proven to be false.
Debate Round No. 4
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Closing Statement

'What makes an argument valid is that its conclusion follows from its premises.' - University of Northern Colorado Philosophy Department (http://www.unco.edu...)


CIIR continues to insist that I have to prove that morality is not equal to common sense. This is not how we prove an argument to be invalid. We prove an argument to be invalid if its conclusion does not follow from the premises. It could be the case that morality is equal to common sense. That has no bearing on the validity of an argument. His argument is only valid if he can prove that his conclusion follows from his first two premises. The only thing I am disputing in this debate is that his conclusion follows from his premises.

Now that we have this established, let's take another glance at the premises of this argument. Morality comes with experience, common sense comes with experience, therefore morality is common sense. Remember, I have not disputed the conclusion. I have only disputed whether the conclusion follows from the premises.

The conclusion obviously doesn't follow from the premises. I gave three paradoy arguments to show the problem with CIIR's logic. I also pointed out that it was an association fallacy (two things sharaing a trait does not mean they are the same thing). My three paradoy arguments, as well as the association fallacy claim, were not disputed by CIIR. The only thing he offered in respect to this was a bare assertion fallacy, when he tried to argue that I didn't prove it was a fallacy just because he says so.

CIIR's entire defense of his argument is based on a misunderstanding of what logical validity even is. He thinks it means that his conclusion is true. That's not the case, as my source showed. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. An argument is not valid just because its conclusion is true. That's the fatal misconception CIIR has about validity.

CIIR tried to center this debate around whether his conclusion was true or not. It's a complete non-starter, because the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the truth of its conclusions.

I encourage the audience to look at both sides of the debate and vote based on which of us tried to engage with the other more, and which of us tried to engage with the resolution more.

Vale.
CIIReligion

Pro

'What makes an argument valid is that its conclusion follows from its premises.' - University of Northern Colorado Philosophy Department (http://www.unco.edu......)

As my conclusion follows from it's premises, I guess it would be considered an argument. Since nothing has been proven to be untrue about any of the premises or conlusion, it cannot be considered invalid.

Con has tried to prove the arguement invalid, but has not shown where it is invalid other than the fallacy of association. Now with the fallacy of association Con has mistaken my argument and has tried tomake it fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Con claimed my argument as such:

P1: A comes from C
P2: B comes from C
C: A=B

If you were to make this a diagram, C would be a large circle with A & B inside it.

This make my argument correct, but a Fallacy of Association is:

P1: C comes from A
P2: C comes from B
C: A=B

If you were to diagram this, A & B overlap with C in the overlap

If my argument was as such:

P1: Experience comes from Morality
P2: Experience comes from Common Sense
C: Morality is Common Sense

Then my argument would fall under Fallacy of Association, but it does not make this claim. Nowhere in this debate has Con shown that my conclusion is not correct, therefore he cannot claim it to be invalid.

I encourage the audience to look at the debate as one of learning. The argument itself is valid and I have shown that. To site a source about arguments and tell me that mine was not an argument, no matter how poorly I might have put it together, does not mean it is invalid. If Con was going to prove my argument was invalid, I feel he did a poor job, as he did not know what an Association Fallacy was in the first place or how it is structured. Better research on the part of Con could have given him what he needed to prove my argument invalid.

Now it is up to the audience to vote.
Debate Round No. 5
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
wiploc, it says on the package Not for human consumption, that doesnt mean you can smoke it.

It is becoming evident the ingredients you are smoking and/or otherwise ingesting, have you slightly incoherrent, you seem to express a rather astute ability to regurgitate jibberish via the filibuster of nonsensical nonsense in relevancy.

You can vote for the earth being flat all day, that sexy b-i-t-c-h will still be a sphere.

morality was a term before the term common sense was coined. Now intellectual honesty is the definition of highest regard in morality and common sense.

Intellectual honesty is screaming that cumulative evolution by natural selection is moon landing true :)

"Thats just the way things were back in those times"

So god made us smarter than dolphins but dumber than todays man. The level of conciousness between a dolphin and a human, was closer back then, since then, Mankind has left dolphins in the dust. Less conciousness supports slavery, sexism, barbarism, that ultimetley, leads to obedience to the petty bully concerned with what humans do naked, who they are with naked, and why :)

GameOver 9:47--The same logic and reason people use to slay zeus and annilihate Leprechauns at the end of rainbows guarding a pot of gold, or the simple obvious logic and reason we apply to elves living in a tree, when it comes to whether or Not the reason for all the stars and galaxies is concerned with what we do naked and who we have sex with and why, you seem to abandon logic and reason like a supermodel deciding she wants to end up marrying a 69yr old man thats been living homless on the streets for the last 48 yrs, some things are just statistical improbabilities. Isnt it interesting that everything else in life that has no evidence, like zeus, you dismiss easily, however, when it comes to a divine sex monitor, you cant get enough.
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
wiploc, everyone on Debate.org just got that much more stupid reading your BS. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about or even understanding!
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

Does immorality come from experience too? Is morality the same as immorality?

: I said it below, which you probably did not read, but Morality is nothing more than Common Sense.

So now you have the from/with/is/is-nothing-more-than problem. Or you would have if we were supposed to be voting on the comments thread.

: Now not all Common Sense is Morality and that is why I did not say Common Sense is Morality.

See, that is information vital to your argument, but which wasn't included in your argument. Had you included that, and other missing premises, then your argument could have been valid.

: Please try to be a little more intelligent

Blow it out your ear.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
CIIReligion wrote:
: If you don't have all the information, how can you speak on a subject so blindly?

We're not voting on the comments thread. Would you need to read the comments thread to know how to vote on a debate over whether 2+2=4?

: Sorry, but many valid arguments can be twisted around to make them invalid, these examples are proof of that.

An argument is either valid or not. Twisting doesn't come into it.

: It does not make my argument invalid. You still have not shown proof where my argument is fallacious.

I think you're beyond reach.

: : All Kansans are tall.
: : Green cheese is Kansan.
: : Green cheese is tall."

: Sorry, but your first premise in this example is a fallacy.

Like "valid," "fallacy" is a term of art. You cannot apply them randomly to things you disagree with.

: You second premise states an inanimate object as person. So your conclusion falls apart. This is not valid.

You don't get it.

: You have yet to see how the argument is made, because you don't want to get into the from/with/is side of it.

It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of what it takes to be valid. The verbs have to match.

Supposed we changed

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

to

All men FROM mortal
Socrates WITH a man
Therefore Socrates IS mortal

The conclusion is no longer proven by the premises. The form is no longer valid.

: my argument is valid because it is true.

That's not the test of validity.

: Tell me, do Morals NOT come from experience?

Huh?

: Does Common Sense NOT come with experience?

I could list instances of that not happening.

: And if the answers are YES, then doesn't it follow that Morality is Common Sense?

Of course not. That's the whole point. You'd need another premise. Something like "Everything that comes from experience is the same thing."

Does immorality come from experience too? Is morality the same as immo
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
"I haven't read most of the comments. If other people said the same thing I did, that's not my fault."

That is the problem. If you don't have all the information, how can you speak on a subject so blindly?

"Your argument isn't valid. It is patently invalid. The examples don't come into it. Except for this: In order to win the debate (because he argued first, and so, in my view, had the burden of proof) your opponent had to demonstrate that _he knew_ the argument wasn't valid. He did this with examples."

Sorry, but many valid arguments can be twisted around to make them invalid, these examples are proof of that. It does not make my argument invalid. You still have not shown proof where my argument is fallacious.

"Example 2:
All Kansans are tall.
Green cheese is Kansan.
Green cheese is tall."

Sorry, but your first premise in this example is a fallacy. You second premise states an inanimate object as person. So your conclusion falls apart. This is not valid.

You have yet to see how the argument is made, because you don't want to get into the from/with/is side of it. I am not talking about tangible objects, such as your last example showed. I am talking about ideas/concepts and my argument is valid because it is true. Tell me, do Morals NOT come from experience? Does Common Sense NOT come with experience? And if the answers are YES, then doesn't it follow that Morality is Common Sense?

I said it below, which you probably did not read, but Morality is nothing more than Common Sense. Now not all Common Sense is Morality and that is why I did not say Common Sense is Morality.

Please try to be a little more intelligent when you try to use logic and tell a person how an argument works. As for my tone, I really don't care what you think at this point.

Just as you ignored certain parts of my comments, I will ignore the "valid" context question you asked since you seem to be lacking in the context portion of this discussion!

Read the whole
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

Example 1:
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
C: Socrates is mortal.

That is a valid form. It is valid because nothing you plug in for the "variables" will change the fact that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Witness:

Example 2:
All Kansans are tall.
Green cheese is Kansan.
Green cheese is tall.

If those premises were true, then the conclusion would have to be true, because the form is valid.

To prove that an argument is not valid, all you have to do is substitute in for the variables so that the premises are true but the result false. If you can do that, then the form is invalid. Your opponent did that with your argument.

Your argument:
P1: Morals come from experience.
P2: Common sense comes with experience.
C: Morality is common sense.

We'll ignore the from/with/is problem. If you wanted validity you'd need the same word in P1, P2, and C. But, let that slide. We'll move on to other things.

Now, since we're concerned with validity, the question is, can we replace the variables so that the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Yes, we can.

Example 3:
P1: Books come from stores.
P2: Movies come from stores.
C: Therefore, books are movies.

But books aren't movies, so we know there is something wrong with the form of your argument. It is not valid.

Your opponent gave three such examples in the debate, proving beyond question that your argument is not valid. I don't know why you didn't concede. I can't imagine why you are being nasty about it. Your argument is not valid. It has been proven not to be valid.

I hope this helps.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
CIIReligion wrote:
: wiploc, if you can prove my argument to be invalid, do so.

Not sure I can add much to what Typhlochactas said in the debate. He was lucid, cogent, compelling. I don't know why you haven't seen the light.

: Repeating what has already been said by others without explanation

I haven't read most of the comments. If other people said the same thing I did, that's not my fault.

: does not make what you say any more valid.

That could be the problem. Do you not know what "valid" means in this context?

: If you can't understand anything that is going on

You wrote a couple of confusing sentences. I couldn't follow what you were saying in those particular sentences. That's a far cry from not understanding anything that's going on.

: and don't know what certain things are,

Name one.

: how can you say that the argument is invalid based on examples?

Your argument isn't valid. It is patently invalid. The examples don't come into it.

Except for this: In order to win the debate (because he argued first, and so, in my view, had the burden of proof) your opponent had to demonstrate that _he knew_ the argument wasn't valid. He did this with examples.

: Show you know how to do a little research

Research doesn't come into it either.

: and prove that the argument is invalid!

I can't say I care for your tone. But I'll give it a try, just in case you can be reached.

Valid arguments have a form such that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also true.

===continued===
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
wiploc, if you can prove my argument to be invalid, do so. Repeating what has already been said by others without explanation does not make what you say any more valid.

If you can't understand anything that is going on and don't know what certain things are, how can you say that the argument is invalid based on examples? Show you know how to do a little research and prove that the argument is invalid!
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
CIR wrote:

CIIReligion
: Plus, the person to instigate the debate and make claims against the Argument is the one with the BoP. I claimed the BoP only because it was my argument and I was Pro, the only way for me to meet my BoP is to have Con refute the Conclusion, as he did not, I had not BoP. Does this make sense?

No, I'm not clear on what your saying. Nor can I square it with the part of of your round three post where you seem to be saying you can't argue until he's met his burden of proof.

It occurs to me that some of our confusion may stem from the fact that this debate had its origin elsewhere. You could think you are defending different argument than what he's attacking. But if this is what you intend to defend:
: P1: Morals come from experience.
: P2: Common sense comes with experience.
: C: Morality is common sense.
then he's right that the form is not valid. You could still be right that the conclusion is true, but we can't know that the conclusion is true based on the given premises, therefore the form is not valid.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
CIIReligion wrote:
: wiploc, if you don't see how Con did not prove a fallacy, then you did not read the entire debate.

Horsefeathers.

: his fallacy claim was fallacious as Con did not know what an Association Fallacy is.

I don't know what an association fallacy is either, but it is obvious that your argument is fallacious, and his examples proved it.

: If you can't see that I gave Con a chance to invalidate my argument and only at the end did I point out where he was wrong, then you have problems.

Ah, insult. This earns your opponent conduct points.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This argument was obviously invalid from the get-go, but Con did a good job of explaining why it's invalid, and Pro didn't do much to refute Con's arguments. Pro seems to think the issue is whether the conclusion is true or not, but he was mistaken. The resolution clearly states that the validity of the argument is what's at issue, and as Con pointed out, the validity of the argument has to do with whether the conclusion follows from the premises, which it doesn't. I'm countering wiploc's conduct point since the voting is supposed to be based on what goes on in the rounds, not what goes on in the comment section.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. ETA: Conduct points for insulting voters in the comments.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Just because 2 things share a property doesn't mean they're related. Typh gave really good arguments to show how flawed the reasoning is. CIIR didnt rebut this. He in summery said "you havent shown why it's wrong". Clear win for con
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: If CIIR's Argument for Mathematics is Valid was the name of the debate, and CIIR's mathematics claim that 2 + 2= 4, it would be on the Con to disprove it was 4. Failure to disprove the claim that morality is common sense, is the failure to disprove 4 :) Common sense may Not have been the stout ingredient it is today back close to 2000 yrs ago. However, in the 21st Century, morality and common sense are as obvious as the common sense on a hot stove and your hand not touching it, obvious. This is an eyeless scorpion fail. religions attempt to own common sense by labeling it morality. religion owns the rights to morality like they own the rights to equal human treatment between two consenting adults in a court of law to get married. The fact that common sense is Not being placed on homosexual morality, does Not mean common sense isnt the correct answer when it comes to morality. Conduct Pro, Con played dodgeball to Pro's claim
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 showed the fallacy in Pro's line of reasoning (as set forth without challenge in the first round). Pro did not provide an adequate rebuttal to this, nor did he show his argument was anything more than a fallacy, indeed, it seems he did not understand how that fallacious argument had any baring on the validity of his statement.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con spent the entire debate playing semantics games and intentionally missing the point, while Pro tried in vain to get him to return to the subject at hand.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter DG who as usual treats voting on debates like voting in the opinion section (I.E. whatever his opinion is) His RFD basically consists of a monolog rant of his own personal opinions. Not to mention the fact that he gives MRS to PRO, WTH. & WITW is " This is an eyeless scorpion fail. religions attempt to own common sense by labeling it morality." Can we ban this dude. Anyway, beside that Con clearly won since the way he set up ciir's "argument" was clearly not valid. Pro tries to shift the burden of proof, & only makes an argument in the final round R5, once con can't respond. that should cost conduct as well.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro had the burden of proof and never made a convincing argument to support it. He basically kept trying to shift his burden to Con.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Despite the fact pro has the BoP, he never actually made a real argument. He only said things like, "my opponent never proved that my argument is wrong, he only pointed out fallacies in it." However, pro misses the fact that pointing out fallacies is what proves an argument wrong. Even after con told about how things that come from experince are not equal to morality, it seems that pro ignores this and refuses a proper rebuttal, so I award arguments to pro.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
TyphlochactasCIIReligionTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro claimed Con failed to do his research in showing this argument invalid. Clearly that's not the case. Con also gets conduct because Pro's use of the final word, was not to summarize, but used his final round to actually engage Con's arguments with some substance. Unfortunately Con doesn't have a chance to respond to a final round. This is a cheap tactic I've seen this particular debater use and it's never going to work for him. Sources also go to Con for obvious reasons. Regarding arguments, Pro's formulation (if you can call it that) is embarrassingly fallacious and invalid for anyone who's even taken a freshman level class in logic. Con could have said much more but he said enough to convince me that Pro's "argument" is formerly invalid.