The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
NewCreature
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points

Homosexual acts are immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,177 times Debate No: 24527
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)

 

socialpinko

Con

Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length.


===Definitions===


Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. To keep the debate focused I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality.


For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality.


===Resolution and BoP===


The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants.


===Rules===


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.
NewCreature

Pro

I would like to first thank socialpinko (Con) for this debate and to all the readers who will read this debate. My hope is that this debate won't be taken merely as an intellectual competition or a battle of logic and argumentation, but instead a discussion on a very important topic. I'm not here to win points by technicalities, my goal is not even to win a debate (though I will be trying my best to do so). My goal here is to tackle this issue at its very foundation and hopefully provide a sound argument for my position, while simultaneously demonstrating that the counter position is not intellectually tenable.

I will be taking the Pro position in this debate and will be defending the resolution that "homosexual acts are immoral".




DEFINITIONS

I am in full agreement with Con in his definition of homosexual acts, ie "Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex."

Now the definition of the term "immoral" is where the debate really is. I appreciate Con's definition as well as his following statement that shows that he is aware that he and I will have differing views on what constitutes immorality. I hope the readers will take this important detail into account.



Now on to my argument..

This debate is not about whether or not homosexuality is a defect in nature, nor is this debate about whether homosexual acts should be legal or illegal. Those are different issues.
This debate is about whether or not homosexuality, or homosexual acts to be specific, are immoral. This is a debate about a moral or ethical issue. This is important to note because morality and ethics transcend what is legal and what is natural.

Though I chose to accept to defend the resolution that "homosexual acts are immoral", Con was the one who formulated this resolution. What I want to point out here is that Con and I both are presupposing a moral standard on which we can gauge what is immoral and therefore ground this debate. Con stated that "For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct." This shows that Con will be arguing against the resolution on the basis of a moral standard.

Con did however state that him and I "will no doubt have differing views on what constitute immorality". I very much appreciated this statement of his and though I think this is where the debate will get tricky, I hope that Con and I will get somewhere with this during our debate.



ARGUMENT


Con was exactly right when he said that we will no doubt have differing views on what constitutes immorality so I will begin my argument by putting forward my view, which is the Biblical view on morality as interpreted by Reformed Protestantism.

God is absolute, with an unchanging moral character and is the standard of morality. Anything that is contrary to his absolute, unchanging character is therefore immoral. His commands and his word that he revealed through natural revelation and special revelation, ie. scripture, are expressions of his character and are therefore absolute, unchanging, and more importantly AUTHORITATIVE and binding.

P1 God and His word is the standard of morality

P2 The word of God teaches that homosexual acts are immoral

C Homosexual acts are immoral


Now as demonstrated above, WITHIN the Christian system, homosexual acts are indeed immoral.

I think it is safe to assume that Con has a different view on morality, and I am very interested to know which system of ethics he subscribes to, whether it's that of Kant's, Bentham, Sarte, Aristotle, Nietzsche, a combination of 2 or more, or maybe someone else, and maybe even his own philosophy of ethics. It does not really matter what system of morality he will present, what matters and what is necessary is that the system is not arbitrary, and that the system is binding.

For Con to refute the resolution, he can either:

1. Somehow show that homosexual acts are not immoral within the Christian system.


2. Provide an alternative moral standard that I and everyone else are necessarily bound to. In other words, a moral system in which I MUST accept that homosexual acts are not immoral.


Con can also argue that absolute moral standards do not exist altogether, therefore, homosexual acts are not absolutely immoral, since there is no such thing as "immorality". In this case, we would just be arguing on who's personal OPINION is better, not unlike arguing which favorite color is better.


In conclusion, the statement that "homosexual acts are immoral" presupposes a moral standard. I have provided a moral system that is absolute, universal unchanging, authoritative, and binding, and in which the resolution is supported. For Con or anyone to hold to the counter position, they must at the very least provide an absolute and binding moral standard that refutes that resolution. it would be irrational to debate about a moral issue while at the same time hold to the position of moral relatavism.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

I'd first like to thank Pro for offering up his interesting case. I will agree with him on his important differentiation between morality and nature/law. However, Pro also makes many mistakes in his case, namely the supposed presupposition of a moral standard on my part and his faulty conception of the consequences of rejecting an absolute moral standard. These fallacious points of reasoning in conjunction with the subsequent lack of warrant regarding Pro's theistic claims will show that there is no reason to accept the Pro case.


Praxeological Analysis.


The reason I think Pro made the mistake of thinking that I have to bring a rival moral theory in order to deconstruct his own is because he does not see a way for moral theories to be criticized in any other way. Pro seems to rely on the conception of morality as not criticisable by any rational means. This is not the case. Ethical goals need not be only criticized from the perspective of other ethical goals. Another non-moral standard on which to judge these goals and judgements is by praxeological critique. A praxeological critique refers to a value-free analysis of a moral assertion. Murray Rothbard explains:


"And yet praxeology may be extended beyond its current sphere, to criticize ethical goals. This does not mean that we abandon the value neutrality of praxeological science. It means merely that even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully and, therefore, that praxeology can criticize (1) existential errors made in the formulation of ethical propositions and (2) the possible existential meaninglessness and inner inconsistency of the goals themselves. If an ethical goal can be shown to be self-contradictory and conceptually impossible of fulfillment, then the goal is clearly an absurd one and should be abandoned by all. [...] we are not here attempting to establish a positive ethical system of our own or even to prove that such a system is attainable. We believe only that praxeology should have the right of veto, to discard any ethical propositions that fail to meet the test of conceptual possibility or internal consistency."[1]


As Con to the resolution my purpose and goal within this debate is to show that whatever reasons Pro brings for the alleged immorality of homosexual acts is incorrect. This does not mean that I must supplant his moral theory with my own, that is unnecessary to show his theory to be faulty. I need only to show why Pro's own moral theory either rests on an existential error in its formulation or it is itself internally inconsistent. If this can be shown then there would be no reason to accept Pro's standard and this would be enough to oppose any such theory. This point also refutes Pro's assertion that to not argue from an absolute moral standard would be to give up objectivity in this debate. On the contrary, I can still show his own morality to be false via value-free reasoning.


===Deconstruction of Pro's Case===


The most serious problem with the Pro case is that Pro has completely failed to provide warrant as to the existence of the God. The relevance is that God is itself supposedly the entire grounding of moral normativity. Seeing as P1 implies the actual existence of such a God (I will assume for argument's sake that Pro did not base his ethical argument off the edicts of a fictional character for now), warrant is obviously necessary in order to corroborate his claim. If there's no valid reason to think that God exists then there is subsequently no valid reason to think that Pro's argument is sound. And since Pro has failed to provide an argument in favor of the existence of the Christian God AS WELL AS proof that God himself has made such an edict (even if God is shown to exist a separate line of reasoning is necessary to show that the Christian holy books were actually inspired by him), there is no valid reason to believe Pro's claim.


===Sources===


[1] Murray Rothbard. Power and Market. Ch. 6, Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique. Available online at: (http://library.mises.org...)
NewCreature

Pro


The whole “Praxeological Analysis” section of Con's reply should be dismissed since I completely agree with it (from what I understood). Con was simply mistaken when he assumed that I suggested that the only way he can refute my argument was to supplant the moral theory that I presented with an alternative. Note that I never suggested that one can analyze a moral system from the perspective of another moral system, that would be fallacious. I did say and I still argue that ONE WAY Con can refute me is to provide an alternative, that is self-consistent, more absolute moral system. However, anyone can see that also I suggested 2 other options.

I. The first is to show that homosexual acts are in fact NOT immoral WITH IN the Christian moral system. Basically an internal analysis of the moral system that I presented, which is what Con is suggesting in his "praxeological analysis" rebuttal.

This can be done by either:
a. Demonstrating through the Bible, (which is this system's authority), that these acts are not deemed immoral.

Con did not argue against my claim that homosexual acts are in fact deemed immoral in the Christian moral system.

b. Proving that the system itself is internally incoherent. I was actually anticipating this. I was sure that Con would try to use Euthyphro's Dilemma argument, which is why I took time to first explain that God's commands are expressions of his unchanging character and nature, and how God's unchanging character is the standard of morality.

Con did not at all attack the internal cohesiveness of the Christian moral system.

II. Instead, Con, though he might be unaware of it, went with the third option that I suggested; Con is essentially throwing absolute moral standards out the window, thus making the debate that Con himself started completely meaningless.

Con in his attempt to deconstruct my argument, basically argued that the moral system that I provided is invalid until it is established that God exists and also that the Bible is indeed inspired by God. There are 2 things that Con is neglecting in his deconstruction.

1. Epistemology

Con in his demand for proof of God's existence and the Holy Scripture's inspiration, is neglecting and precluding the only possible way things of this category can be known, that is, through direct revelation. A being like God who is the creator of and is beyond the material world, who is transcendent and completely unique and different from the created world, can only be know if God Himself condescends and reveals Himself to his creation. Likewise, Morality, being PRESCRIPTIVE and transcendent in nature also can not be known other than through revelation of a personal (able to communicate), transcendent, absolute, authoritative (creator) being. What "ought to be" can not be known from observing "what is". This is why any moral philosophy that is based on one's observation is invalid. Because all of them consists merely of DESCRIPTIONs of what can be observed, and arbitrary and subjective views and opinions on what SHOULD be.

2. The debate itself presupposes the existence of the Christian God.

I will try explain this using a simplistic sports analogy.
Let's say that Con challenged me to a debate and Con wants me to defend the resolution, "double dribbling is a violation"
Now let us analyze the resolution skipping the obvious definition of "double dribble"

1. The word "violation" in the resolution presupposes a set of rules that is being violated.
2. These set of rules must be transcendent (to the players of the game) and binding (to the players of the game)
3. In defending the resolution, I would defend it within the set of rules of the game of basketball, because that is the only game or system where the resolution is defensible.

Con can try to refute it by then saying that he rejects the rules of basketball, and I’d say, okay but in doing so, Con forfeits the only system that he can appeal to when he wants to complain about other things like goaltending, travelling, 3 in the key, etc.

So keeping that analogy in mind, let’s take a look at our actual debate.

1. The word "immoral", even according to Con's own definition ("For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct."), presupposes a moral standard.
2. A moral standard, in order to be a "standard" needs to be internally-consistent, transcendent and binding. It can't be based on arbitrary, subjective opinions or principles.
3. Only the Christian moral system is internally-consistent, transcendent, and binding.(I welcome Con to challenge this) Thus the resolution can only be defensible within this system.
4. Therefore, the resolution and the debate itself presupposes the Christian moral system and the Christian God, and the initial argument still stands.

Now Con wants deconstruct my argument by simply rejecting the whole Christian moral system. Well Con can certainly do that, but in doing so, Con also forfeits the only system that he can appeal to, when he is talking about other issues that I’m sure are important to him, like rape, murder, stealing, etc.

This shows his inconsistency and demonstrates that the proof of the Christian moral system, and the Christian God, is that denying it/Him will lead to internal inconsistencies, self-contradictions and absurdity.



Conclusion

Con from my understanding of his arguments is basically going the route of simply rejecting any moral system unless its validity is proven to his satisfaction. Con’s rebuttal is basically, “homosexual acts are not immoral because Pro has not provided a moral system that I accept.” and the reason Con does not accept the Christian moral system is because I have not proven to him that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
My response is that denying Christian moral system will lead to absurdity as I explained above.

I have a couple of questions for Con, and Con is not obliged to respond to these, but I would appreciate it if he does.
Notice that Con started a debate about a specific ethical/moral topic, instead of debate on which moral standard is valid, or if a moral standard exist. Also, Con defined the word “immoral” as “contrary to right or to moral conduct.”
Does Con hold to standard of moral conduct? If so which one? If not, does is Con simply going to argue from position that there are no absolute moral standards?
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

Nihilism and Possibility of Meaningful Moral Argumentation.


The first point of argumentation which Pro argues is simply a re-statement of his position that if I do not accept a given moral standard then I have no way to actually debate. An interesting point, though it fails to take into account my point of praxeological analysis which shows that in order to argue successfully for a given moral system, it must be internally coherent and existentially reflective of humanity and the world. Pro's Christian standard fails to present existential reflectiveness seeing as God's existence has yet to be proven, The point that this debate would be meaningless if I were not to accept some moral system as a standard for argumentation has still yet to be defended by Pro.


Epistemology and Standard of Proof Concerning God.


In response to my refutation concerning the lack of proof provided by Pro concerning either God's existence or the validity of the Bible in describing accurately it's opinions, Pro responds by conceding the point. He writes: "A being like God who is the creator of and is beyond the material world, who is transcendent and completely unique and different from the created world, can only be know if God Himself condescends and reveals Himself to his creation." In effect, logical or empirical evidence is useless here. But the point which must be stressed here is that by Pro's own admission the only way to lend credence to his moral system is by divine revelation which does not fit the standard of proof necessary to prove a claim. Obviously such a revelation would never be confirmable, falsifiable, repeatable, or any other epistemic measure proposed as a legitimate standard of proof. Therefore there is no reason to accept the validity of the Christian religion and hence no reason to accept the moral prescriptions which stem from it.


On the Alleged Presupposition of Christianity in the Resolution.


In light of the lack of evidence supporting the validity of the Christian religion, Pro makes an attempt to claim that the debate itself takes Christianity as a given and that therefore proof is unnecessary. His argument stems from the idea that the term 'immoral' in the resolution presupposes that some moral standard would be used and from this Pro argues that the only moral standard which could possibly fit is Christianity. The first problem with this point of course lies with the gross misinterpretation of the resolution and the function of such regarding truth claims. The second problem is that there are in fact multiple moral standards which could have instead been presupposed (many of which would not make homosexuality immoral) if we take Pro's first premise as a given. Therefore even if his first point is correct, it doesn't justify Christianity as the moral standard or homosexual acts being immoral.


(A) Presupposition of morality


The first problem with this point is the alleged presupposition of a moral standard in the resolution and Pro's mistaken interpretation of what a resolution actually means. The resolution is itself a statement where the Pro argues that it is true while the Con argues that it is not true. In relation to this debate specifically, I am arguing that the statement "Homosexual acts are immoral." is false. Nothing within that means that I have to assume a moral standard seeing as I already showed that the statement could be refuted by non-moral means. As my praxeological analysis point shows, assuming a standard is unnecessary to fulfill my burden of proof. This was shown by the Rothbardian analysis on the rational burden of any ethical system and can also be shown more relevantly in the "presupposition failure" form of error theory defended by Richard Joyce[1].


(B) Christianity as non-unique


The second problem with the argument for the presupposition of Christian morality in Pro's case is the fact that Christianity is not unique in presenting the relevant characteristics which Pro argues are necessary for morality. An internally consistent, transcendent, and binding system of morality is implied by the resolution according to Pro. However, his system shares the same characteristics with several other religious systems of morality. Consider Judaism and Kantianism as other moral systems which abide by Pro's standards. Reform Judaism has rejected the old interpretation of normative condemnation of homosexuality[2], interpreting Levitical laws as not necessarily inspired by God and holy books as not necessarily inerrant. Just as well, homosexual acts are compatible with Kantianism and the categorical imperative since modern artificial insemination practices would still allow for the continuation of the species even if homosexuality were universalized[3][4]. Pro's assumption that only Christianity may fill the void which my supposed presupposition of morality has left open has therefore shown to be false.


===Conclusion===


Pro's only arguments in support of the immorality of homosexuality have been clearly refuted. On the alleged meaninglessness of arguing from without a moral standard, Rothbard's praxeological analysis and Joyce's presupposition failure easily refute this point. On Pro's admittance that rational argumentation is inapplicable to arguments concerning God and that divine revelation is the only possible point of knowledge, I showed that this does not and cannot represent any real reason on my or the reader's part to accept such an argument. After all, I could simply claim that God told me the opposite through divine revelation and there would be no evidential difference between the two claims. Also, Pro's argument that I presuppose Christianity in the debate was shown to be false given that the presupposition of morality at all is unnecessary as part of my burden in conjunction with the fact that the truth claim of the resolution does not require a moral standard to be shown to be false. Furthermore, even if the alleged presupposition of morality were conceded, Christianity would not be necessarily accepted since other moral standards which fit Pro's description are also available.


===Questions by Pro===


(A) I personally hold no moral standard to be correct.
(B) My plan of argumentation was to employ praxeological analysis. Moral standards must be framed meaningfully and fulfill a burden of rational proof. Therefore any moral standard which cannot do this must be rejected, along with their edicts. On top of that, I would have also been fine with debating some moral systems correct interpretation regarding morality. You kind of ruined that with Christianity as your standard though seeing as you can't philosophically interpret the edicts of a deity.


===Sources===


[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.jewishjournal.com...
[3] http://www.babymed.com... (Female homosexual methods)
[4] http://www.webmd.com... (Male homosexual methods)
NewCreature

Pro

Con’s Argument Undermines The Debate He Started


I never accused Con of not having a meaningful argument.

What I was saying was that position that Con is espousing renders the specificity of the debate meaningless and redundant given the terms that Con himself defined.


Con said,

“For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality.”


Con defined “immoral acts” the way someone who holds to a moral standard would. But Con is now arguing that, homosexual acts are not immoral because there is no valid moral standard and therefore no such thing as “immoral acts”. Why then did Con start a debate about whether or not a speficic act is “immoral”. Con’s defined “immoral acts” but is now arguing from a position where “immoral” does not mean anything.



Defending P1


I am not simply arguing that Con’s position is invalid because of its incompatibility with the terms he himself provided. I am very willing to tackle Con’s attempt in deconstructing my argument because like I said, the position Con assumed is the position of an honest person who rejects Christianity.


Con basically argued against P1 of my syllogism.


P1 God and His word is the standard of morality


Con argues that P1 is not established since I've not proven the existence of God and the inspiration of His Word, the Bible.



Epistemology

I argued that Con must first acknowledge the only logical epistemic basis for things like morality and God. I argued that the only logical way gain knowledge of God and His character, which is what would ground absolute morality, is by divine revelation. The Christian position is that God made a general revelation of Himself and His character when He created man in His image. In other words, EVERYONE has a general knowledge of God and His characters INNATELY. God also made more specific revelations through scripture. Romans 1:18-15 teaches that the unbeliever, in his wickedness SUPPRESSES the knowledge of God that God made plain to all.


This is the Christian claim and my goal in defending P1 is to show proof for this claim. My goal is to prove Con already knows God exist and that he is suppressing this knowledge.


Con argues that divine revelational epistemology is not valid because it “does not fit the standard of proof necessary to prove a claim.” Con says that, “Obviously such a revelation would never be confirmable, falsifiable, repeatable, or any other epistemic measure proposed as a legitimate standard of proof. Therefore there is no reason to accept the validity of the Christian religion and hence no reason to accept the moral prescriptions which stem from it.”


Con is asserting that verificationism is the absolute standard of proof. This is fallacious simply because verificationism is self-refuting, since verificationism can not be verified. It fails to meet its own standard. Con also mentioned that anyone can claim a divine revelation. I agree. Indeed, there are many false revelation claims, but it does not follow that there are therefore, there are NO TRUE revelations. The nature of things like morality, reason, logic, and God, demands a presuppositional or transcendental method to prove their validity. This is exactly what I’ve been doing if Con still hasn’t noticed by now.


Cornelius Van Til wrote:

“―A transcendental method ... seek[s] to determine what presuppositions are necessary to any object of knowledge (whether in negation or in affirmation) in order that it may be intelligible to us. We should be willing to start anywhere and with any fact that any person we meet is interested in. The question is ... what is the final reference-point required to make ... the ―fact and ―laws intelligible.” [1]



Though verificationism is useful for knowledge, it is not the absolute standard. I would love for Con to prove the validity of logic and reason by his stipulated standard of verifying, falsifying and confirming. The nature of the object in contention, God’s revelation, demands a presuppositional or transcendental method to be proven absolutely true and valid. And as Van Til pointed out, the way to do this is to determine what the necessary preconditions are in order for the object to be intelligible to us.


And the way to prove the Christian claim of exclusivity or uniqueness is to reason, as Van Til puts it, “from the impossibility of the contrary.” This is similar to what Con’s “praxeological method” ( if i understood it correctly). It is an internal critique of a system and the goal is to show that it is internally-incoherent and thus logically impossible.


A great and simple example of this is the moral argument.



The Moral Argument


I argued that in order for a moral system to be intelligible and valid, it needs to possess certain necessary traits. It needs to be self-consistent, absolute, transcendent, universal, authoritative and binding. Con seems to agree with this and only argued that Christianity is not unique in having the characteristics necessary for morality.


Con mentions Judaism and Kantianism.

Kantianism - This is easily refutable. Notice how Con equated morality to the survival of the human race, without first establishing why the survival of the human race has moral value. This is simply arbitrary and is not binding. One can easily have the contrary opinion that self interest is the greatest good, regardless of how it impacts humanity as a whole. Or even that humans do not have more worth than any other stardust and there is no reason therefore to prioritize the survival of human beings. Kantianism is reduced to a mere personal opinion on what “good” is because ultimately Kantianism can not define and ground “moral good”.


Judaism - It would seem that Judaism rivals Christianity in possessing the necessary traits needed for a moral system. Con is forgetting that Christianity claims to be Judaism in its TRUE and COMPLETE form. Judaism would be in the same category as Islam, Mormonism, JW, Gnosticism and any other corruption of true Judaism/Christianity. We would have to do an internal critique of the specific Judaism that Con is talking about to show that it is internally inconsistent. If Con wants to challenge me on this he can do so in another debate and actually include reference of their doctrines.


So then, The argument is that, Christiniaty is not only the best foundation for morality; it is the ONLY philosophically sound foundation for morality whatsoever! (and reasoning for that matter). So if one appeals to a moral standard, one can only do so by assuming the truths of Christianity. Con has not rebut this point. Morality therefore presupposes Christianity, and Christianity supports the resolution. (Lev 18 and 20, Rom 1, Mat 8, Luk 7, Mat 19, Acts 8)


Moral Relativism


So then what about the position that there are no such thing as morality?

1. Like all form of relativism, it is self refuting. Simply put, if moral relativism is true then it is ok to disagree with it. This is simply not logically coherent.

2. Moral relativism is not livable. This is not an argument but a call to Con to examine his view and compare it with how he actually lives. Con claims to not believe in moral standards yet a quick look at his profile will show his inconsistencies and that he is very interested in ethical and moral issues. I highly doubt that Con is indifferent on what other people’s opinions are on rape, child abuse, etc. I’m willing to bet that he tries to live to a certain moral standard (that is very similar to the standard that Christianity teaches, except he tries to justify the ones that he disagrees on) That’s exactly what it looks like to suppress the knowledge of God.

Thanks for the Debate socialpinko. I really wish I had more time to proofread this, I apologize for any errors in advance.

Citations

[1] Survey of Christian Epistemology, by Cornelius Van Til(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1969)

Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

socialpinko forfeited this round.
NewCreature

Pro

I'm not supposed to post an argument in R4.
I have no idea what happened to socialpinko. I don't think he actually wanted to forfeit the last round. Something must have happened. Thank you again socialpinko for the debate and thanks for all who will read.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NewCreature 4 years ago
NewCreature
ran out of time and ran out characters... i need to stop waiting til the last minute to write my responses!
Posted by NewCreature 4 years ago
NewCreature
ugh... i hate ddo! why does it randomly refresh and not save my progress?!!?!?!?!
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
It's a dumb argument. WriterDave won by a landslide; however, having around 10 votebombs for Contradiction neutralized much of the scoring that could be done for WD. I have yet to read or hear a good argument against homosexuality or homosexual acts. Why don't you accept this debate and attempt to argue against Spinko?
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Contradiction defended it well. Writerdave bested him barely. Danielle is a fine debater. But still. The teleological argument may be imperfect but I believe it is suitable. Ethical Naturalism very much lends itself to the Teleological argument. Ethical Naturalism falls the Teleological argument falls becomes function become unnessasary.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
That's the teleological argument, and it's not much less intellectually retarded.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
is unconvincing. lol
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 4 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Ya but its a fallacy in dispute plus the definition of Nature is differant than what is commonly thought of as nature. The argument flows differantly:
P1)X is unnatural
C2) X is bad
VS
P1)X violates the proper function of a organism
P2) we shouldn't do what violates the proper function of a organism
C3) We shouldn't do X
However violating proper function is hard to define. Contary to and other than is a very fine line. Its hard to know where to draw it. Another problem is it treats all violation of function as equally and provides no judgement on motivation to function. Those are the only problems with Ethical Naturalism. Hume and Moore did a poor job of showing it was fallacy. The open question argument
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Going from nature to morality is the naturalistic fallacy anyhow, royal.
When Contradiction will finally ManUp by debating Danielle on this topic, it will be a good day for DDO.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
That would obviously be a point of contention in the debate.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Who's/ what standards are used to determine morality?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
socialpinkoNewCreatureTied
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: Apparently Con's the hospital (as per Wallstreetatheist's counter vote), so I'll counter to bring this back to a tie. Additionally, I know Socialpinko wouldn't just forfeit a round.
Vote Placed by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
socialpinkoNewCreatureTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
socialpinkoNewCreatureTied
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: Although I'm sure he wouldn't willingly forfeit a round, SP still dropped all arguements in the last round, and so Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
socialpinkoNewCreatureTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter. Con's in the hospital
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
socialpinkoNewCreatureTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. will read later