The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Projectid
Con (against)
Winning
59 Points

Is the foundation for Morality: Natural or Supernatural?

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 19 votes the winner is...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,887 times Debate No: 41428
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (638)
Votes (19)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I was hoping Con would accept this debate. Con is arguing that Morality is based on Naturalism. I Pro will be arguing that the foundations of Morality are based on Supernaturlism.
Projectid

Con

I accept, I will await the Pro's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

So to begin my debate, I will list three premises for my argument that logically follow each other. (I typed this up in MS Word, so if the text looks a little uneven that is the reason. That should not count against my debate.)

[1]
Three Premises

1. If God does not exist, then objective Moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3.Therefore, God exists.

1. On the Theist Worldview, Objective moral values and duties have a sound foundation since they are grounded in the existence of God. When I speak of Moral values, I am talking about good and evil. Since God by definition is the greatest conceivable being, and the highest good. This would then make God’s own holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions are measured. By his nature he is, loving, generous, faithful, kind, and so forth. Thus if
God exists, objective moral values exist, wholly independent of human beings.

On an Atheistic worldview moral values are just “behavioral” outcomes of sociobiological evolution and social conditioning. We are no different than Baboons. Baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousins homo sapiens have evolved a sort of
herd morality for precisely the same reasons. As a result of socio-biological pressures there has evolved among homosapiens a sort of herd morality which functions well in the perpetuation of
our species. But on the atheistic view there doesn’t seem to be anything that makes
this morality objectively binding and true.

The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because
such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a
biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation.
Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any
deeper meaning is illusory."[3]

J.L. Mackie, one of the most outspoken atheists of this century agrees, "Moral properties are most unlikely to have arisen without an all-powerful god to create them.”[3]

2. What do I mean by Objective moral values and duties? Well first, to say that moral
values and duties are objective is to say that they are valid and binding independent of human opinion. For example: Racial Slavery 200+ years ago was considered morally good by the South, even
though they knew it was morally evil. If the South had won the Civil war, that would not make racial slavery objectively good, it would still be evil.

What do I mean by duties? According to the Oxford dictionary: [2] Duty is defined as a
moral or legal obligation; a responsibility.
Theism as a worldview provides a solid foundation for objective moral duties. Moral duties are sanctioned by God’s commands. God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commandments which constitute our moral duties or obligations.
Therefore, his commandments are not arbitrary since they are consistent with his nature which is holy and loving. For example in the Judeo-Christian worldview the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength
and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. By this standard or moral foundation, we can affirm the objective rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

How does atheism provide a basis for objective duties? Duty has to do with moral
obligation or prohibition, what I ought or ought not to do. Animals do not have any moral obligation to one another on how they should live or act. But, we as human beings have moral obligations to one another.



Moral obligation requires moral causation. In other words they serve a purpose for their existence here on earth.

If God does not exist, then who or what imposes the moral obligations to human beings? Where do they come from?

On atheism there is no reason to think that we should have any moral obligation to one another. All morals are just “preferences” that have been ingrained into us by societal and parental conditioning.

3. In summary, since the two premises logically follow then we can safely and
assuredly say that God must exist, for objective moral values and duties to
exist.

Sources:

[1]
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[2]
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[3]
http://www.michaelhorner.com...

Projectid

Con

It has been agreed that round two is for our individual arguments, therefore I will not be making any rebuttals directly to the Pros arguments , rather I will be stating my case for morality apart from a supernatural view. I would like to point out to the readers that the initial agreed argument in the title mentioned nothing about the objectiveness of said morality, so the Pro can argue for moral objectives from a supernatural perspective, but I do not bear the burden of proving objective morals from a natural perspective in this particular debate, I merely have to prove that morality comes from a natural position. With that being said I would like to thank the Pro for the challenge, I look forward to it.

Point 1. The best possible explanation for morality is by far a natural one. To assume any other only complicates a simple issue. It has been made into a complex situation for many years, but when you remove all the garbage from the arguments we find it boils down to a few points of interest. It is about the well being of humans. It is about the evolving of mankind to become as happy or comfortable as possible in life. Morality has to do with the relationship we have with other human beings. If there were no other humans in this world other than me, there would be no morality, so we can see that morality has to do with the effect that others have on me and the effect I have on them.
1. On the whole, humans desire the following: avoidance of death and suffering, and the achievement of happiness.
2. Most humans realize that these desires are easiest achieved in an environment where the infliction of death and suffering are prohibited and the pursuit of happiness is permitted.
3.Most humans also realize that the mores/laws that prevent their neighbors from harming them also prohibit them from harming their neighbors.
4. Thus, within the framework of this understanding lies the foundation of secular morality.[a]
So in conclusion with point one, we can see that there is no need for a supernatural explanation for morality.

Point 2. We are mere animals. If we are animals than shouldn't we act like animals? Well, we do, yet we have evolved into animals that have self awareness and a capacity for abstract thought, we have the ability to understand the consequences of our actions to a greater degree than any other animal. We are aware of what other beings think and feel. We can comprehend what it means to be moral. We have the ability to adopt and live moral lives. As Richard Carrier said, "Every species acts in their own way, so why shouldn't we." It is not an insult to compare us to the animals we see around us, it is about understanding how much more we have evolved in comparison to them.

Point3 Methodological Naturalism
All effects have natural causes subject to scientific analysis. The supposition is that the moral sense in humans and moral principles in human cultures are the result of laws of nature, forces of culture, and contingencies of history. [b] Our morals can be defined as humanistic. Modern thinkers have elaborated on how our moral sense can have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity. What we see in animals, we see in ourselves, only with the addition of cultural evolution. The sense of right and wrong has been taught to ourselves through this long process of evolving. It has been shown that humans have a common moral sense. Beyond supernatural means, we understand collectively as humans that unjustified killing is wrong, why, because the end result does not further mankind, it has no benefit? First and foremost it creates suffering to those who are connected to the one killed and in turn if we have any empathy, we would not want the same done to those who we care about, so we would refrain from doing the same to others. The same idea can be said for rape, violence, lying, stealing and so forth.

Point 4 The argument from religious examples.
If morality comes way of supernatural means, then you would expect those who claim some right to those means to be superior to those of a belief in natural morality. Such is not the case, in fact the opposite is the case. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, "In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies," and "In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows" with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and "theistic" Portugal.[c] Among "born-again" Christians, 27 percent currently are divorced or previously have been divorced, compared with 24 percent among adults who are not "born again." [d] I could go on and list many other studies and polls, but I think my point is made.

Point 5
Empirical evidence has only shown morality to stem from natural means. It is imperative that the Pro shows some kind of evidence for his position, so far he has not. Natural morality can and has been shown to be a viable understanding of our morality as humans, so assume it derives from any other means is to to take a great leap of faith, no pun intended. How does the Pro know where exactly morality comes from in the supernatural sense, does it come from the Koran or the Torah, perhaps from the New Testament or maybe the Vedas, why not the book of Mormon or one of the many religious books that claim superiority among the people of this world? It is possible the Pro believes that we have morality placed in us innately by this supernatural being, if so what proof can he offer, I say none?

Conclusion: It is more rational to accept a natural means of morality verses a supernatural one. With natural morality we can see progression through time surpassing religious beliefs and evolving beyond the standards of all religion as we know it. To think that we cannot be moral beyond the Bible or any other written book is to say that before these books were written man was not capable of knowing how to treat each other and did not know right and wrong until then. This is utterly false because there are beliefs predating the monotheistic writings that show morality among humans. In my next post I will deal with the Pros arguments in detail and show how they are false.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."
" Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930

[a] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
[b]The Science of Good and Evil, Michael Shermer : pg.17; 2004
[c] Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland)
[d] http://assets.baptiststandard.com...
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro

I would first like to apologize to Con and the audience. I thought my opponent understood that the title meant Objective. ) I probably should have mentioned that in the title), but subjective Morality is not real because it is dependent upon something. Objective morality is morality that is independent of thought or feeling. The purpose of this debate is to prove on what basis do objective moral values exist. Con has technically already made his argument, so then “technically” we are arguing the foundation for objective moral values.

I do not have enough room to copy all of con’s arguments, so I will instead just post my response to them.

[1]Response to Point 1:

On Con’s first assumption, he uses Occam’s Razor, a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. Well if Atheism is the simplest answer for the foundation of Objective moral values, then why are there so many different forms of secular humanism?

Utilitarianism- the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.( Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill)[2]

Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong.(Frederick Nietzsche)[3]

Trans-humanism- the belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.(Max More)[4]

Personism- belief that rights are conferred to the extent that a creature is a person.(Peter Singer)[5]

As you can see, Occam’s Razor shaves Con’s own argument. I did not list every single one, but it is obvious that none of these secular-humanistic ideas agree with one another. On theism, the main foundation for humanism is God’s existence. So I would beg to differ with Con for thinking that Atheism is much “simpler” than Theism for the foundation of objective moral values and duties.

Con has attempted to answer the “value” problem. The trick he uses is simply to redefine what he means by "good" and "evil" in non-moral terms. He attempts to define 'good' as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures since it helps the flourishing of human beings in a society.

Con is not really talking about moral values. He is just talking about what's conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. By this observation, his claim that science can tell us a great deal about what contributes to human flourishing is hardly controversial. Of course, it can — just as it can tell us what is conducive to the flourishing of for example: Corn or bacteria. But, neither of these things have any value to them.

For identity is a necessary relation. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there is any possible world in which A is not identical to B, it follows that A is not in fact identical to B. Since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and moral goodness are not the same

Con, has failed to solve the "value problem." He has not provided any justification or explanation of why, on atheism, objective moral values would exist at all. His solution is just a semantic trick of providing a redefinition of the words "good" and "evil" in nonmoral terms.

[6] [7]Response to Point2+3 Methodological Naturalism:

Con assumes that animals have a moral standard like we as human beings do. This is simply false. Animals are not moral agents. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills it, but it does not murder it. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female shark, it forcibly copulates with her, but it doesn't rape her.

Such actions go on all the time in the animal kingdom. Actions which look very much like rape and incest and murder happen all the time among animals. With respect to human beings, the child pedophile or rapist who tortures and kills a little girl, on atheism, doesn’t really do anything morally wrong. It is just socially unacceptable.

He is like the person who wears white socks with a tuxedo. It is socially unconventional. But if there isn’t any moral law giver, then there isn’t any objective moral law which we are obligated to fulfill. So it seems that on atheism, there really aren’t any objective moral values or duties.

Why is it wrong when we human beings do it?

Because, nature is just morally neutral, and animals are not rational agents endowed with moral duties.

As I said before moral obligation requries moral causation.

Atheism can not explain either of these objectively.

Response to Point 4:

Con has committed a “red herring” here. What does this even have to do with our debate topic? Our topic is “Is the foundation for Morality: Supernatural or Natural?” not “What belief results in more crime: Atheism or Theism?”

This is in no way analogous to our debate topic, and again is simply irrelevant. For, we are simply debating the grounds for objective moral values and duties, nothing else.

Response to Point 5:

Con, I believe has misunderstood my argument here. On premise (2), I am not arguing that one has to “believe” in God to know that morality is objective. Of course everyone knows morality is objective, because we can know through our five senses.

I am not arguing which God, since that is not relevant to our debate topic. As I said before in my argument, God by definition is the greatest conceivable being, and the highest good. This would then make God’s own holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions are measured.

Again my argument is that on Atheism there is no standard or foundation for objective good and evil. Con must show the Burden of Proof, for the foundation on which objective moral values and duties to exist.

Sources:

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[4]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Projectid

Con

The first premise of the Pros argument can only be true if it presupposes its conclusion " rendering the argument circular, thus invalid.

Also, the problem with this view is that it is not established how God grounds objective moral values.

I. Is something good because God commands it so or does God command it so because it is good?

II. If something is good because the God commands that it is so, then what is morally reprehensible to us can be good.

III. If God commands that it is good because it is good, then the good is greater than God.

IV. So, either the good is arbitrary or good is greater than God.

The Pro argues that God is good, that his very being is essentially good. If God"s essential nature is good, because it is good, it implies that the objective standard for what is good does not rest in God"s essential nature, but in good itself, or some other external standard of good. If on the other hand, God"s essential nature is good because good is whatever God"s essential nature is, then good is SUBJECTIVE rather than objective. This is because if God"s essential nature was such that he considered rape to be a good, and it is true that objective moral values are grounded in God, then rape would be objectively morally good. It also does not follow that just because an entity has an essential nature, that concepts derived from it, or dependent upon it, are objective.

Bertrand Russell put it this way: "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good."

As a human beings, our genetic make-up imbues us with predispositions towards all kinds of feelings, impulses, likes and dislikes, this is our nature. But this does not mean that the moral impulses that arise from our genetically determined predispositions represent intrinsic truths about reality. No, they simply represent our subjective feelings on an issue. Therefore, even if it were true that God exists, and has a nature, and that nature was synonymous with goodness, any moral values derived from God would still be SUBJECTIVE. So even if it could be established that objective moral values do exist, they could not possibly be dependent upon a supernatural foundation, aka God.

Premise 2: The Pro insists on claiming that objective moral values come from God, but it needs to be explain why people who believe this hold widely divergent views on many moral issues " such as divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and tithing, etc. If objective moral values do exist, there must be a single objectively moral position on all these issues, yet there are many divisions among believers regarding what is objectively moral and what is not. On what basis are believers supposed to decide what the objective moral truth is when there are several competing alleged objective moral values among believers? It is amusing that the Pro uses the argument of atheistic diversity in moral beliefs as a way to denounce a natural foundation for morals, yet believers are in just as much conflict, the only difference and it is a major one, is that believers our supposed to have one source for their morality, God.
If believers want to claim that God is the source of objective moral values, then it should be the case that there is a reliable way for determining what those values actually are!

Here is what one believer said about his actions:

"...Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Adolf Hitler; Mein Kampf Vol.1 Ch.2

Conclusion:
The Pro needs to explain to all of us where we can find this supernatural foundation for objective morality. It seems as though he does not want to tell us even though we all know it is the Bible, he is a Baptist after all. How does he know that God is loving, generous, faithful, kind? He has not proved this, it is an assumption. If the Pros source is the Bible then show us objective morals from it. Prove to us that god is good by his own nature. How can one prove the foundation of morality without showing where it came from, or how it came about and what it is. Not all statements can be proven merely on a philosophical level, sometimes it is necessary to prove a point based on evidence, where is your evidence for this supernatural foundation for morality? How do you know what is right or wrong? Your first posting made so many assumptions that it's strange to me that you believe this.

Again the first premise in his argument ( which is not really his argument, since it has been around long before either one of us was born) presupposes the conclusion and fails! The Pro needs to deal with this failure and acknowledge it by defending it properly or concede. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that objective moral values do exist. So how can he prove a foundation when he cannot prove that objective morals exist? He can say they exist but cannot prove it because he has given us no proof, just assumptions based on a philosophical argument. The second premise of the moral argument, therefore, fails as well. He needs to deal with this or concede as well. Not only does this argument fail to prove that objective morals exist, it fails to prove that god exists let alone any supernatural being establishing a FOUNDATION for said morality. This is just the Divine Command Theory argument popularized in recent years by William Lane Craig, and it still fails to show whether god's commands could be considered objective rather than arbitrary!

Thank you for your time and attention.
Debate Round No. 3
janetsanders733

Pro

Conclusion:


Con has failed to show the basis for objective morality. As we have seen Con has committed red herrings, and straw mans. He has not shown his burden of proof. He has not understood any of my arguments and shifts the burden of proof.


I have answered his objections. For example: he assumes that morality can not be grounded in God, and considers it subjective. However, earlier in my debate I showed how that is logically false.



Con raises the age old "Euthyphro Dilemma" by Socrates. However, this is a false dilemma. The intriguing third way of dealing with this question is that God is logically equivalent to goodness ie what we call goodness Is God, and what we call God is goodness.



As I mentioned in my opening argument, If God is the greatest conceivable being, and the highest good, that means he is; therfore independent. And his commandments are not arbitrary since they are consistent with his nature which is holy and loving. They are not dependent, since he is independent. And, since he is independent then what comes from his independent and not subjective. This would include objective moral values.



So, I don't see how God's commands are arbitary or his nature. Con assumes that God is contigent and he must show how, but as I said before God is independent, so he's not contigent.





However, on Con's view he can not show the basis for objective moral values or duties. He has not explained how we are different than animals, since animals are not moral agents like we are. He assumes were predetermined to do these things, which refutes his own arguemnt. Because, if we are predetermined to do these things, then as I said before on Atheism its not really objectively good or evil, you are just acting out of fashion with society.



I would like to thank Con, for having this debate with me. And, I would also like those who vote on this debate.






Projectid

Con

The Pro spends most of his time accusing me of red herrings and making assumptions. But notice in his concluding post that he uses the word "IF" to justify his argument for this God being the greatest conceivable being. He cannot prove this and has not. Again the first premise in his argument can only be true if it presupposes its conclusion, rendering the argument circular, thus invalid! Also since the Pro admits that he set the debate up incorrectly because of the lack of defining what he wanted to debate via OBJECTIVE morality, the Pro assumed that I believe in objective morality, if this is not the biggest straw man, I don't know what is.
I have shown in my two posts thus far that based on the agrees debate terms before posting, that the best answer for the foundation for morality is indeed natural. I have more proof in nature for my arguments then the Pro will ever have for a God or this supernatural foundation for morality.

All I ask is that if you vote, you must read the debate carefully and see that the Pro never truly deals with the problems of his arguments. He does not deal with the Euthyphro Dilemma, he merely pokes at it as if it is not worthy of a response. He accuses me of not understanding his arguments, well, how can someone understand that which makes no sense and has no evidence for. Any argument for God is assumed, therefore a natural foundation for morality is more plausible, to which I clearly stated in my arguments in such a short debate.
Even Christian apologist William Lane Craig only answers the objective morality issue with statements like this:

"..objective values do exist, and deep down I think we all know it."

I am sure if WLC cannot give a good reason other than feelings then or Pro cannot and has not as well!

Please vote wisely.
I would like to thank the Pro for his time and effort.
Debate Round No. 4
638 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
I would assume supernatural means something that is not natural. The belief in a "universal consciousness" would fit that definition. Does that mean universal consciousness would fit the definition of God in this context?
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Why do Calvinists prefer subways and trains? Because the destinations are all pre-determined.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
@ Logical-master I'm sure as someone that is 104 years old has had plenty of time to study law.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@Logical Yeah, I mean no ancient historian actually says that something is "hearsay" because something is written after the fact. That is how anicient history worked lol.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
Seriously, you're arguing against centuries of case law. Just no.
Posted by Logical-Master 3 years ago
Logical-Master
@ Sagey

Actually, Sagey, speaking as one who has studied the law, there are multiple exceptions to hearsay as courts realize that the rule is not absolute. Ancient documents are one such exception, so no go on that front. ;)
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
@Sagey No sage you are close-minded.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
There's no real value in any of the texts you cite, as far as verifying anything about Jesus of Nazareth.
You have never had any evidence.
That's for sure,
These many posts have been a waste of time.

Your evidence is so weak that it, really gives no clear, usable evidence for anything.
You have absolutely no useful, verifiable evidence for Jesus Christ.
We are back at the start of this argument, yet again.

You've proven yourself and this argument to be a complete waste of space!
You lost days ago and refuse to admit it.
Keep your ignorance.
We here don't want it!
Bye!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No, it's not disagreement with myself.
It's disagreeing with the laws of Rationality, that make people Irrational.
If they disagree with the laws of Rationalization, due to religious bias, such as many Christian judges have done in the past, then they become Delusional.

They made decisions based on Christian bias and not a Rational Consideration of the Evidence.
That makes them Irrational and Delusional.

That is the point of view of most Critical Rationalists and Skeptics.
Not just mine.
Your posts so far have been placing yourself in the same Zone of Irrational, Delusional Thinking.
That's not just my opinion, but that of many Intelligent, rational thinkers.
As they have made similar hints in their posts on this argument.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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: Pro had the burden in this debate because he was attempting to argue for the resolution that morality is dependent on God instead of the natural rationale that it arose naturally. With that, pro never met his burden. Most of his arguments were fallacious because they falsely equivocated two different things. In other words, pro tried to argue that a description of morality equals morality, and from that that both required a mind to create them. However, assuming objective morals exist, they are only dependent on reality - it is only the description of said morals that is dependent on a mind. Overall, con's arguments were more convincing, and were strong enough to negate the resolution.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited some good sources, though dismissed some reliable sources due to myside bias, showing it is good to cite valuable sources but extremely bad when the information within those sources is completely ignored or misinterpreted due to bias.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow great debate Pro however spent much time pointing fingers at con while not responding to his arguments Con had actual evidence to support his claims and far better arguments.
Vote Placed by bored 3 years ago
bored
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't say that either produced a winning argument, but I thought Con was more organized and had slightly better conduct.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed many different ways in which objective morals are established by natural means. Pro failed to adequately show that objective morals cannot come from a natural basis. Pro makes an equivocation fallacy to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Con's arguments were generally more convincing and explains much of the consistencies as well as inconsistencies in human moral behaviors.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to address the Euthyphro Dilemma, nor did he provide any hard proof that objective moral values do exist, instead assuming it to be obvious. Con is correct that Pro did not specify Objective Morality when he should have.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both conduct and s&g were even. Good job to both sides. For arguments I give it to Con. It was very close though. Both sides give very, very compelling arguments, and were able to refute their opponent and defend their own case very well. However the main thing for me was that in round 3 Pro ignores Con's 2nd and 3rd point so CON takes argument. For sources I give it to PRO. Both used good sources, but also each of them used wikipedia at one point. However what gives it to pro is con's Hitler source. That is not exactly the best source, as Hitler's beliefs are not exactly the ones you want on your side of the argument. Overall though great debate guys!! In the end I thought the overall winner was CON!
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con conducted themselves well and both had good grammar/spelling. But, Con wins for the following reasons: 1. Pro bases almost his entire argument on WLC's arguments, which have been refuted ad nauseum. 2. In his first rebuttal of Con, Pro said, "Well if Atheism is the simplest answer for the foundation of Objective moral values, then why are there so many different forms of secular humanism?" I find this statement to be contradictory since there are over 33,000 sects within Christianity. Moreover, Christians are not the only ones who believe that their god is the author or morality. 3. Pro claims that Con resorts to red herrings, straw men, and not responding to his points, which Pro has done. 4. Pro states that morality comes from God and rightly states that slavery in the South was evil. But the god he worships openly commanded his followers to make slaves of neighboring nations (Ex. 21). His position that his god is the author of morality is highly contradictor
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
janetsanders733ProjectidTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar and conduct fairly equal all around. Pro makes a large number of Bare Assertion fallacies (for example, the claim that everyone knows objective morality is true, his claim that "god" is necessarily the highest good and omnibenevolent) as well as engaging in circular logic/begging the question in his very first set of arguments. He never rebuts any of Con's arguments- he just claims they are Red Herrings but never addresses any of them. His final arguments basically boil down to "morality is supernatural because god exists", which is logically absurd. Pro also uses very biased sources, several of which have factually incorrect references.