The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

If God doesn't exist, morality isn't objective

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 2 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 92985
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

God: "Arbiter of humanity and supreme moral authority"

"Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true"
rationalwiki.com

"Good" is behavior that ought to be done, desired, or approved of.

"Bad" is behavior that ought not be done, desired, or approved of.

First round is for acceptance.
vi_spex

Con

morality is objective

when is it moral to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushroom to keep them healthy?

health is good, apples are healthy

sickness is bad, rotten apples are bad for our health, and deadly poisonous mushrooms
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

first round was for acceptance.

My opponent gives an example as to why morality is objective.

What my opponent needs to do is argue that objective morality isn't contingent upon God's existence.

I am arguing that since objective morality is true, God must exist.

God is defined as the arbiter of humanity and supreme moral authority. If there is no arbiter or supreme moral authority of mankind, then mankind is inherently not a means towards any end. What we ought or ought not do (good and bad) is undefined. If what we ought or ought not do is undefined, morality can't have objective principles about what ought or ought not be done. Therefore if God doesn't exist, objective morality cannot either.
vi_spex

Con

that is acceptance

god is subjective, morality is objective, like math.. are you arguing that we should eat the rotten apples to stay healthy?

so you argue it is moral to feed your kids deadly poisonous mushroom to keep them healthy if god says so

so eat rotten food the rest of your life.. its not bad, dont mind the fuzz and colored mushrooms

so because god dosnt exist you will not die from eating a deadly poisonous mushroom.. there you go
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

I've given a definition of God in the first round which does not make God subjective.

I won't press it further but posting your argument isn't considered an acceptance round.

My opponent further argues that morality is objective. There is no rebuttal to my argument. Extend my arguments.
vi_spex

Con

ok, creation is a construct, machines are constructs, nature is the opposite of machine
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 8 months ago
Codedlogic
Benshapirovi_spexTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro first starts by shifting the BOP to Con by saying they must argue for a counter claim. Pro than sets up a Tautology Fallacy by defining God as the "Supreme Moral Authority". Con objects saying "God is subjective". Pro never address this objection except to say that's how Pro "defined God".
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 8 months ago
KroneckerDelta
Benshapirovi_spexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins because because Con's arguments are incoherent.