The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Debater's Choice

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 31934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules:

2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind.

3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i.e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments.

4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debate:

5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that.

6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications.

7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible.

Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star.

If there are any changes you feel are necessary before accepting the debate, please make some indication in the comments section

Without further ado......


The statement that I will be debating FOR is that morality of man evolved through the mutations of DNA, which allowed for the formation of certain genes that allow man to tell between what is humane, and what is not.
Debate Round No. 1


Resolution: The morality of man evolved through the mutations of DNA.

My position: the morality of man did not evolve through the mutations of DNA.
My opponent's position: the morality of man evolved through the mutations of DNA

Definitions (all dispute over definitions are to be settled with definitions from

morality - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society; the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

man - humanity, mankind, homo homo sapiens

DNA - Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid

evolve - develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form

mutation - the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes; a distinct form resulting from a change in the structure of a gene.

You may begin giving your argument in this round. If you do decide to begin establishing your case in round 2, please leave round 5 empty so that we have an even number of argumentative rounds between us.

Since this is a clarification round, I ask PRO: are you trying to prove that DNA is the sole morality-inducing agent? Please clarify.



I answer CON by saying that I am trying to prove that DNA is the base morality-inducing agent, and that even though there are other factors that influence morality, like social influence, natural disasters, etc., without the evolution of such genes, there will be no moral complex present in an organism's race. I say that this also applies to humans. I am not trying to explain where learned morality,i.e. a set of rules taught by parents or other figures of authority, came from. Instead, I am trying to prove that morality indeed evolved at a primitive level sometime during the evolution of the human race. To repeat, I am not referring to morality as a part of child psychology and child development.

1. a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1a. some other group, such as a religion, or
1b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. [1]

Social Influence:
The actions, reactions, and thoughts of an individual are influenced by other people or groups. Social influence may be represented by peer pressure, persuasion, marketing, sales, and conformity. [2]

[1] -
Debate Round No. 2


The morality of man did not evolve through the mutation of DNA.
Evolution is a theory based an analysis of empirical evidence (i.e. the structures of some species corresponding with those of others). I won't be assuming the abusive position of epistemological cynic, don't worry. For the purposes of this debate, let us assume the theory of evolution is a fact.

My opponent says: "I am trying to prove that DNA is the base morality-inducing agent, and that even though there are other factors that influence morality, like social influence, natural disasters, etc., without the evolution of such genes, there will be no moral complex present in an organism's race"

PRO's basic stance is this: morality's evolution is largely due to genetic mutations. In other words, the main causal factor to human society's changing moral standards is due to notable alterations in the human genetic sequence.

Let me provide further insight into the theory of evolution:
Evolution is the gradual adaptive change of a species as a whole toward the development of physiological functions that enhance the species' reproductive/survival abilities. A large society of finches (birds), for example, live within the confinements of an island with very unique environmental conditions. In this example, the only food source available to the species are nuts contained within tough shell barriers. Obviously the finches who are not able to break this barrier will starve. Evolution metes out the incapable. The large majority of surviving finches are the ones with better shell-breaking functions. Indeed, this finch example has actually been observed by the notorious Charles Darwin. He traversed the Galapagos Islands, making biological/behavioral observations of each islands inhabitants. He noticed several distinct species of finches. These finches were undoubtedly different. Each specie could only breed with those of the same specie.
Despite the differences between these species of finches, Darwin realized that there were actual very remarkable similarities. The birds shared many physical traits, some were almost indistinguishable but for singular physiological differences which were local to the island in which they inhabited. Darwin assumed a logical stance asserting that each specie of finch were different to adapt to differing environmental circumstances. This branching of species was noted thus:

"Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends".[1]

Of course, we cannot be absolutely positive that these observations are, in irrefutable fact, the indubitable cause of the different species' existences, but, again, please assume, for the purposes of this debate, that evolution is an established fact (since my opponent's resolution hinges on its authenticity.)

Let us apply this to my opponent's statement that morality is 'evolved' by gene-mutations.
Humanity, any species for that matter, is constantly working to maintain its survival. Humanity's strength is in its cooperation. The first establishment of human civilization allowed for the first instances of sustained leisure. Before, constant nomadic life had kept the bulk of homo sapiens busy securing food and shelter. The transient nature of their insecure surroundings left no room for greater developments. Farming and livestock raising was revolutionary. Not only did the constant worry of tracking the food keep the people on their toes; it also limited their physical/mental labors to food and shelter.
The coagulation of the human species into stationary farming units left leeway for leisure. With this freetime, man eventually developed a plethora of tools, allowing him to perform a large variety of tasks with greater ease than ever before. The development of non-survival based skills such as music, art, etc. flourished. Societal coagulation necessitates a system of behavior to keep the unit from self implosion. If society is unable to coexist peacefully, then this inability will harm the society's survival capabilities. This is evident in peoples killing each other, in wars and other similar conflicts. Changing conditions required changing systems of morality to adapt to these conditions. Societies in the past had moral systems that justified slavery. As time progressed, slavery began losing its justified status. Today, no society openly practices slavery. This is an evident change.

Note the difference between this theoretical process of change, and that of genetic mutation.
By specifically naming DNA mutation, my opponent makes a leap from evolution adaptation to genetic mutation. Obviously, the change from slavery to anti slavery, when such change was openly initiated, only took our moral system a couple centuries. However, even evolution-theorists agree that genetic evolutionary mutation take tens, hundreds of thousands of years. The development of homo sapien sapiens (us) did not occur for millions of years. The first noted species of the homo - X series preceded homo sapien sapiens by incalculable years (homo erectus, australopithisans, etc.). Homo sapiens (homo sapien neanderthals among others) arrived only in this recent span of years (~20k+ years). My opponent's case is groundless since the change in morality, its evolution, cannot be due to genetic mutation; species-affecting mutations are shown to only occur over extremely long periods of time (tens-hundreds of thousands of years.) As with the slavery-case, the evolution of slavery-justifying moral systems occurred only in a short span of centuries.

In summary: My position states that, rather than genetic mutations, variants of a specie gain prominence due to adaptive factors. Those with the capacity for a certain type of survival/reproduction enhancing morality already exist. Selective reproductive patterns (Kindness, for example, is a generically favored trait among dating site applicants) give these individuals a better chance at producing offspring. More kind individuals are produced, less kind individuals diminish. Over time, according to my premise, kindness will become a dominant trait. Society in aggregate can then be said to have changed in favor of kindness.
There was no actual genetic mutation involved.

*Passes baton*



godofecht forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I extend all my arguments in hopes of some astounding comeback.
How dare you betray my confidence! Gr.


godofecht forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Beginner forfeited this round.


godofecht forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
Just vote as you feel appropriate, I'm done here. :)
Thank you, readers, for your time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 3 years ago
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 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: ff