The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,468 times Debate No: 12418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (194)
Votes (17)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank Cerebral Narcissist for accepting this debate challenge - it's been a while since my last debate, so I've been eager for another one.

My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent. From here on out, I will refer to this position as meta-ethical relativism, and to be more precisely it's abbreviated form MMR. The following is a definition of MMR[1]:

"The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

I believe this is a core tenet for my opponent that allows him to advance his belief in cultural relativism[2]:

"Cultural relativism ... maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people."

Since I'm interested in taking this debate mainly because I want to hear what my opponent's argument is (not just hoping to win a debate), I will set aside my opening argument to hear my opponent's case. Note that I DO acknowledge that I have a burden of proof, and thus I WILL make an independent case against MMR in my forthcoming rounds. What I simply am asking is to hear my opponent's case, so I can focus my criticisms to address all of his arguments (albeit there won't be too many I need to employ). If my opponent won't extend me this courtesy, then simply notify me about this via comment sections and I'll promptly edit the debate, albeit with a sad face whilst doing it.

---References---
1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate challenge.

Further to my opponents definition of Meta ethical moral relativism (MMR) I would like to add, from the same source the further description of,

"First, it is sometimes said that the truth or justification of moral judgments may be relative to an individual person as well as a group of persons."

To address the argument we must first take a step back and consider what is meant by morality.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that there are two definitions of morality,

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

The first description is instantly reconcilable with MMR, the second definition I will address later.

We can observe that morality does vary from and within culture, time and person. Victorian morality was based on Christianity, class, racism and intense sexual repression. It was also full of examples where these moral values were challenged. Modern British society is highly atheistic, values money and fame over social class, multicultural, and sexually open. At the same time it is home to religious people, snobs, racists and sexual conservatives. It is abundantly clear that morality is a relative concept, the examples of variation even if restricted to the two examples shown above could fully use up the character limit.

In addition I would go a step further, there are no universal moral laws, or taboos that are universally agreed upon by every person or every society. Incest, cannibalism, rape, murder, not one of them has universal condemnation. Indeed this is one of the core foundations of modern anthropology.

How can one judge what is moral, amoral, or immoral? We can do this only by our own personal judgement, which is the result of socialisation, religion, philosophy and is entirely relative and subjective.

It can be objectively demonstrated that 2+2 = 4. There is no objective way of ascertaining if an act is good or evil, moral or immoral. I consider homosexuality entirely acceptable, someone else would claim that it is violation of God's law, self destructive, harmful to society, unnatural and offensive. Both sides would be able to offer arguments, some cultures would take one side, some individuals would take another. Both sides represent a subjective moral judgement, there is no objective truth in regards morality.

The universe does not care for the concepts of good and evil. If mankind (and all sapient life) vanished then so too would concepts of morality. Such concepts do not exist objectively unlike scientific facts and mathematical logic which exist even if there is no one there to realise it.

If moral relativism is false, there must be some sort of objective standard or yardstick to measure moral questions against. This takes me onto the second definition,

"2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

There does not exist a single code of conduct that is agreed to by all rational people. Hitler was for most of his life rational, Stalin was rational, Ghandi was rational, the incestuous Pharaohs were all generally regarded as rational people, Charles Manson appears entirely lucid. Yet they all held opposing and conflicting moral codes.

Morality is therefore subjective, and relative, a matter of personal or collective societal opinion and it is for those reasons I affirm that MMR is both 'sound' and 'logical'.

I could spend some more time attempting to pre-empt arguments that my opponent may use, but I am not certain as to what his argument is so I shan't!

http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge.

I accept his inclusion of a further addition to the definitions acknowledge in this debate. Further, I accept the truth of descriptive moral relativism - it is a relatively uncontroversial anthropological theory (albeit some discrepancies involve the possibility of universal moral virtues). However, after affirming what I found to be obviously true, he strays right off the road and states the following: "How can one judge what is moral, amoral, or immoral? We can do this only by our own personal judgement, which is the result of socialisation, religion, philosophy and is entirely relative and subjective." Oh really.

====================
Criticism of MMR
====================

"How can one judge what is moral, amoral, or immoral? We can do this only by our own personal judgement, which is the result of socialisation, religion, philosophy and is entirely relative and subjective."

According to your reasoning, all statements are "entirely relative and subjective", given how can one make a moral judgement without it coming from their personal perspective? Of course, outside sources of knowledge can inform their perspective, but it's still ultimately their perspective. From this premise, you want to claim that this would alter their judgement to be entirely relative and subjective... whereas to me, this seems to be simply be an absurd estimation. Anyway, following my original point this would damn all statements to be relative -- even ones concerning mathematics (which you deem to be objective). And if so, if you deem truth to be relative, then effectively you are even denying the validity of the law of identity.

In essence, your entire position turns on itself as moral relativism entails epistemological relativism, which in turn invalidates itself. This is my main criticism of MMR, and I will expand on it depending on your response.

"There does not exist a single code of conduct that is agreed to by all rational people."

Simply because there is no universal agreement on moral issues does not make the nature of morality relative. Analogous to this would be calling truth relative simply because there is no universal agreement, which is clearly bogus reasoning.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent argues,
"According to your reasoning, all statements are "entirely relative and subjective",

This appears to be a straw man or a misunderstanding. No where have I argued that all statements are 'relative and subjective'. I have stated that morality is relative and subjective, I have given examples as to why, and I have demonstrated why I regard mathematics to be objective.

To reiterate, morality varies from person to person, there appears no objective yardstick to estimate what right and wrong is. The Universe is indifferent to such matters.

Moral statements such as, "Abortion is evil" are equivalent to "I hate chocolate cake". It is a matter of taste. Even when someone has attempted to create an artificial external code of morality these will always be based on axioms that are not objective.

The basis of one moral code may be religion, the basis of another moral code may be the respect of the rights of sentients, yet another moral code may be based on what causes the least harm. The fundamental basis of such codes all appear to be subjective and relative.

My opponent further states that,
"if you deem truth to be relative, then effectively you are even denying the validity of the law of identity."

I do not deem truth to be relative, though a moral issue may be true or false, right or wrong within a given subjective moral code, in objective terms it is not. Morality is analogous to taste, taste is a matter of subjective truth, not objective.

None of this has any bearing on the Law of Identity, the law of Identity is a statement of objective reality, not personal perception.

My opponent further argues,
"In essence, your entire position turns on itself as moral relativism entails epistemological relativism, which in turn invalidates itself. "

I am sure my opponent will correct me if I am wrong but epistemological relativism is the argument that all knowledge and belief systems are relative. It is clear that Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism does not require this assumption. It is clear that I have not made this assumption.

2+2 = 4, This can be demonstrated by objective logic. It is not equally valid to claim that 2+2 = 57.
If one culture claims that slavery is a moral requirement, and another considers it abhorrent, what are the objective moral criteria that we can use, irrespective of our own feelings to determine the moral truth? I argue that there are none.

If would like to point out that I am not arguing against having morality, simply arguing that morality is subjective, relative and that Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism is simply a fancy grandiose terms for obvious observable reality.

My opponent has failed to make an opening argument demonstrating that this claim is false, has failed to address any of my points and is arguing against epistemological relativism and not against Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

It seems evident to me that my opponent doesn't believe in MMR, but actually something akin to emotivism, the "view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker's or writer's feelings[1]." I'll explain why this is so in my following responses:

I want to first touch upon an issue that has become a pet peeve of mine: people misusing logical fallacies. My opponent accuses me of committing a straw man (when I claimed his position entails epistemological relativism), but this is an inaccurate response even if my argument were false. I properly represented his argument (when he claims that moral statements are entirely relative and subjective), and in this case no straw man appears. The step that my opponent has troubles with is the fact that I drew the conclusion of epistemological relativism as a logical entailment of his position. He can argue that this doesn't follow, but sticking the "ha, straw man" label is silly.

Now about MMR...my argument will shift, as it has become evident to me that his position is more akin to emotivism than MMR. If I can therefore demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of his stance, then his arguments crumble as he isn't even properly arguing for the correct position. And in accordance with this strategy, defining MMR and emotivism will be crucial in highlighting my opponent's mistake:

====================
MMR & Emotivism
====================

If you refer to the previous rounds for the definition of MMR (I won't re-copy&paste), it maintains that though moral values are relative on factors such as social upbringings, economic standing, religious influences, etc., moral statements are STILL TRUTH-APT. This is the crucial element, because though MMR claims moral values are relative, they are still capable of being truth or false. On the other hand, emotivism is specifically a non-cognitivist position that asserts moral utterances are representations of the speaker's feelings and are NOT truth-apt. A clear analogy to this are sentiments concerning favorite food dishes or music - there is no superior song or superior flavor of ice cream.

So how does my opponent's position align with either of these two positions? Clearly the latter, as he claims: "To reiterate, morality varies from person to person, there appears no objective yardstick to estimate what right and wrong is...[moral statements are] a matter of taste. Even when someone has attempted to create an artificial external code of morality these will always be based on axioms that are not objective."

However, to confuse the issue even more my opponent has claimed in his argument that he still believes one can have morality, despite believing morality is subjective. I ask of him: how can you have truth-apt claims when their epistemological standard is relative? In fact, this is the point of my accusation concerning epistemological relativism -- is you accept the thesis of moral relativism, this would damn you to make a similar claim about truth altogether.

---References---
1. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent states,
"It seems evident to me that my opponent doesn't believe in MMR, but actually something akin to emotivism, the "view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker's or writer's feelings[1]." I'll explain why this is so in my following responses:"

However, we have both posted definitions of MMR, these definitions have been mutually agreed upon. My opponent despite being instigator has yet to attempt to meet the burden of proof for his argument that MMR is incoherent or unsound. My opponent also should now indicate how the position of emotivism fails is mutually exclusive with MMR.

My opponent argues that,
"I want to first touch upon an issue that has become a pet peeve of mine: people misusing logical fallacies. My opponent accuses me of committing a straw man (when I claimed his position entails epistemological relativism), but this is an inaccurate response even if my argument were false. I properly represented his argument (when he claims that moral statements are entirely relative and subjective), and in this case no straw man appears. The step that my opponent has troubles with is the fact that I drew the conclusion of epistemological relativism as a logical entailment of his position. He can argue that this doesn't follow, but sticking the "ha, straw man" label is silly."

I have stated that this is a strawman and demonstrated why this is the case, the above paragraph is merely my opponent stating his disagreement, not actually why he or anyone else should disagree. It appears he has conceded this point, but does not want to acknowledge it. Because it has been ignored here is a reiteration,

I am arguing that for MMR, this entails to me the argument that morality is subjective, a matter of opinion akin to fashion or taste. Epistemological relativism entails that all truths are subjective and relative (my opponent has accepted this definition anyway). It is clear that the former, does not equal the latter.

The onus is on my opponent to demonstrate that MMR requires epistemological relativism, he has not done so. Should he establish the connection the onus is upon him to argue against epistemological relativism.

"Now about MMR...my argument will shift, as it has become evident to me that his position is more akin to emotivism than MMR. If I can therefore demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of his stance, then his arguments crumble as he isn't even properly arguing for the correct position. "

If my opponent wishes to debate emotivism then they should offer me a new debate challenge when this debate has been completed. It is not acceptable to change the topic of the debate at this late stage. Even if my opponent is correct and I am arguing the wrong position, he is still pro, the burden of proof is upon him, and thus far he has failed to offer a single argument to try and meet that burden of proof.

My opponent states that,
"If you refer to the previous rounds for the definition of MMR (I won't re-copy&paste), it maintains that though moral values are relative on factors such as social upbringings, economic standing, religious influences, etc., moral statements are STILL TRUTH-APT. This is the crucial element, because though MMR claims moral values are relative, they are still capable of being truth or false. On the other hand, emotivism is specifically a non-cognitivist position that asserts moral utterances are representations of the speaker's feelings and are NOT truth-apt. A clear analogy to this are sentiments concerning favorite food dishes or music - there is no superior song or superior flavor of ice cream."

This appears logically flawed.

MMR argues that moral values are relative, I therefore take that to mean that morality is subjective. Therefore moral statements are subjectively true or false. You will notice if you check former rounds that I have constantly made the objective/subjective distinction. Emotivism acknowledges that moral statements are representative of the speakers feelings, and are not objectively true. They are still subjectively true. In addition we are not arguing over emotivism.

To summarise, my opponent stated in R1
"My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent. From here on out, I will refer to this position as meta-ethical relativism, and to be more precisely it's abbreviated form MMR. The following is a definition of MMR[1]:"

My opponent has failed to offer a single valid argument in support of his position, in sumary
1: My opponent has failed to demonstrate how Epistemological relativism is synonymous with MMR, and furthermore how this invalidates it.
2: My opponent has failed to demonstrate how MMR conflicts with the logical law of identity and appears to have conceded this point.
3: My opponent is now claiming that the debate is concerning emotivism.

My opponent has failed to demonstrate how MMR is unsound or logically incoherent.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

Alas, it seems I've reached another debate in which the majority of my effort will be dedicated towards explaining a concept rather than discussing it's philosophical merit. I obviously intended for the latter, and given the contrary this irks me. Nonetheless, given that this is my last round I will be as comprehensive as possible in the hopes that it will quell most of my opponent's concerns.

====================
MMR & Emotivism
====================

"However, we have both posted definitions of MMR, these definitions have been mutually agreed upon."

What? Simply because we agreed on the definition of MMR does NOT necessarily entail you are accurately arguing for MMR, which has become evident that you are not. The entire point of me bringing up emotivism is to highlight the fact that your arguments stand in favor of emotivism, NOT MMR.

"My opponent despite being instigator has yet to attempt to meet the burden of proof for his argument that MMR is incoherent or unsound."

In my previous 2 rounds I stated how MMR is logically incoherent - the idea of certain statements (truth-apt sentences) being relative entails epistemological relativism. And given that epistemological relativism is absurd, we can deduce via modus tollens that MMR is absurd as well. The only reasonably close attempt you have made at refuting this central argument is to say the entailment doesn't follow. In response, I stated that you are confusing emotivism with MMR, thus invalidating your response. I feel like I'm doing a commentary more than a debate, but apparently I'm forced to.

"My opponent also should now indicate how the position of emotivism fails is mutually exclusive with MMR."

The relevant distinction is that MMR includes truth-apt sentences whereas emotivism does not...how is that not clear in my last round? I specifically stated the crucial difference.

"I have stated that this is a strawman and demonstrated why this is the case, the above paragraph is merely my opponent stating his disagreement, not actually why he or anyone else should disagree. It appears he has conceded this point, but does not want to acknowledge it."

You can reiterate that I committed a straw man, but until you specifically demonstrate how this is so your claims are empty. Adding to the humor, you even claim that I "concede this point". Seriously? My rebuttal began IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Frankly, I'm perplexed as to how you can miss the function of my arguments, the reason I even bring them up, etc. Since this is my last round, as a last-ditch effort I'll treat this like an elementary school project and explain every step of my argument in painstaking detail. If that fails as well, then whoop de whoop.

====================
Criticism of MMR
====================

In this section I will give an entire overview of both our sides (albeit not in chronological order), where I stand, why I used the arguments I used, and why Cerebral has been wrong in the exact fashion I have stated earlier.

---Step 1---

As with any appropriate debate, the first thing we clarified was the definition of meta-ethical moral relativism. The following was agreed upon: "The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons." My opponent proposed a slightly different version, but this didn't bother me as it practically stated the same thing.

Notice the beginning of the definition clearly pinpoints the relevant issue ("the truth or falsity of moral judgments") to be about the truth value of moral judgments. In other words, MMR is specifically a COGNITIVIST thesis, meaning it's an ethical theory that proposes moral judgments to be propositions. And to do a bit of Philosophy 101, a proposition is any sentence that has truth-value, i.e. the ability to be true or false. "The earth is the center of the universe" is a proposition (in this case a false one) whereas "go over there" is not (in this case it's a command). Remember how I bring up emotivism? This is a non-cognitivist thesis that claims moral judgments aren't propositions, but expressions of the speaker's attitude about certain phenomena. The distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism should NOT be ignored.

---Step 2---

With these two definition in place, I then did two separate things: I first objected to MMR on the grounds of epistemological relativism, and further I argued for an interpretation of my opponent's argument that would better classify him as an emotivist rather than a moral relativist.

My objection to MMR, per my burden as the instigator, took form as a modus tollen argument. I argued that MMR entails epistemological relativism, and given that the latter is absurd, so is MMR. The explanation is simple: if MMR claims that a certain group of statements have relative truth values, then this would contradict the law of identity (the law of non-contradiction can be seen as corollary) given that it would entail any proposition has only one truth value (either true or false). Such an entailment would be aligned with epistemological relativism, the thesis that truth is relative, and this position is absurd given that it's self-refuting.

At this point, my opponent can do several things. He can argue in favor of epistemological relativism by either somehow rescuing it from being self-contradictory, or argue that this somehow doesn't matter. Or, he could argue that there are different "types" of truth (thus allowing for the possibility that not ALL truth is relative, and only a certain group is). However, the problem here would be in how he would demonstrate moral propositions to be epistemologically distinct from other propositions. It's clear he didn't even attempt to do any of these strategies, among others.

The second issue is my point in bringing up emotivism. The reason I did this is to perhaps propose that this is the real position my opponent is arguing for, given the absurdity of MMR. I based this proposal given that my opponent continues to echo "moral judgments are subjective" while refusing to clarify on this usage of subjective. Is it subjective in the sense of sentiments like art? Then that would be a non-cognitivist approach like emotivism. Would it be a subjective proposition? This would be a MMR approach, but seemingly much more unlikely given that a "subjective proposition" would violate the laws of logic.

====================
Conclusion
====================

There is one possibility my opponent can take - to connect MMR with a non-cognitivist position. Some, though not many, have taken this approach in the current debate about MMR. While this would be an interesting approach, I doubt my opponent would take this response (without violating the definitions agreed upon).

But besides that little side note, there isn't much to say about this. My opponent seems to consistently ignore my argument, and hopefully this extensive round can REALLY clarify my argument. I'm worn out from doing debate in which 90% of my effort is explaining my arguments rather than defending them. I almost feel like a continental philosopher, lol.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent states,
"Alas, it seems I've reached another debate in which the majority of my effort will be dedicated towards explaining a concept rather than discussing it's philosophical merit. I obviously intended for the latter, and given the contrary this irks me. Nonetheless, given that this is my last round I will be as comprehensive as possible in the hopes that it will quell most of my opponent's concerns."

I am somewhat at a loss concerning this remark. It appears unnecceasrily patronising and somewhat misplaced. It is customary in a debate to post defintions and explain terms of reference. I presumed that such definitions would be posted and agreed upon in the first round, and for my opponent (who as instigator bears the burden of proof) to post arguments in the second and subsequent rounds. I can not be held responsible for the fact he has chosen not to do this.

My opponent states,
"Simply because we agreed on the definition of MMR does NOT necessarily entail you are accurately arguing for MMR, which has become evident that you are not. The entire point of me bringing up emotivism is to highlight the fact that your arguments stand in favor of emotivism, NOT MMR"

However my opponent has yet to post an argument against MMR. As it is PRO's role to make a case that MMR is unsound and incoherent, I as CON should be reacting to this. Even if we assume that I am arguing in favour of emotivism PRO has presented no argument to support his resolution and has therefore effectively forfeited each round.

My opponent argues that
"In my previous 2 rounds I stated how MMR is logically incoherent - the idea of certain statements (truth-apt sentences) being relative entails epistemological relativism. And given that epistemological relativism is absurd, we can deduce via modus tollens that MMR is absurd as well. The only reasonably close attempt you have made at refuting this central argument is to say the entailment doesn't follow. In response, I stated that you are confusing emotivism with MMR, thus invalidating your response."

This is simply a reiteration of part of the debate, it adds nothing new to the debate. Hopefully this reiteration and expansion of my counter-argument will resolved it.

MMR hold that moral statements are relative and subjective. Epistemological Relativism (as conceded by the opponent) holds that all knowledge is relative or subjective. The two are very different, though it may be inferred that a subscriber to epistemological relativism is likely to be a meta-ethical relativist it does not hold that a meta-ethical relativist is a subscriber to epistemological relativism. In addition my opponent has merely stated that epistemological relativism is absurd, he has presented no evidence to support this conjecture and as he has failed to establish this link.

This point is therefore sucessfully nullified.

My opponents statement of,
"In response, I stated that you are confusing emotivism with MMR, thus invalidating your response"

Is invalid, my opponent has been challenged to logically demonstrate that MMR = Epistemological Relativism not that
Epistemological Relativism = Absurd. The introduction of emotivism appears to simply be another attempt to confuse the topic of the resolution.

My opponent says that
"The relevant distinction is that MMR includes truth-apt sentences whereas emotivism does not...how is that not clear in my last round? I specifically stated the crucial difference."

The debate does not concern the distinctions between MMR and emotivism.
In addition MMR only claims relative or subjective truths within the framework of personal and cultural value systems. Emotional moral judgements can be deemed true or false within the framework of the persons moral system. The divding line between the two topics is very thin. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive positions. My opponent has failed to make this divergence into emotivism relevant to the debate.

The remainder of my opponents post is a rather disapointing depature from proper conduct, and simply a reiteration of arguments that has been rebuted, in the absence of new arguments I can only draw the conclusion that they have been conceed.

To summarise.
1: My opponent states that MMR = Epistemological Relativism = Absurd.
He fails to provide an argument to support this connection and he fails to demonstrate that Epistemological Relativism is absurd. Just stating it so is not sufficient.

2: My opponent attempts to change the subject further by claiming I am arguing for emotivism.
Irrelevant as my role in this debate is simply to destroy his argument. He has also failed to demonstrate that this positions are mutually exclsuive.

My opponent states that
"My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent"

My opponent has failed to post a single valid argument in support of this position, I therefore strongly urge a default vote to con.
Debate Round No. 4
194 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
A quick PS: I dont see where I said I did not understand the debate either... but hey!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
But I responded to it as soon as it was raised and never dropped it... you do realise that Pro had the BoP?

Well at least it is an RFD anyway, even if it bears no relation to the debate that actually occured. I am done.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Here is the most succinct summary of why you lost the debate I could find of the comments I made a year back:

"I think it's unfair to criticise TS for not defending that epistemological relativism was incoherent when C_N never contested, and practically conceded the point anyway. Plus, I think TS deserves the convincing argument points simply by virtue of the fact that C_N never responded to his argument. There was a completely uncontested argument against MMR for the entire debate. Criticising TS for 'tricking' C_N into holding a position he did not might be a little unfair, but A. C_N shouldn't debate things he doesn't understand in the first place and B. I don't see how that would violate conduct in any case.

If I could vote, it would be everything tied except arguments to Pro."
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
It is still in the voting period and he gave no RFD, why does it concern you?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
My god, this debate was over ages ago.
Leave it be, he gave an RFD.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Can we have a RFD kinesis... at least pretend like you are not vote bombing?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"You clearly don't understand the difference between a cognitive and a non-cognitive statement. Moral statements can't be both "subjective" and truth-apt without implying the absurd conclusion that all facts are subjective, ergo MMR is false by modus tollens, "

MMR does not imply that all facts are subjective. Or at least that case was never actually made.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
No I don't want an argument and ad hominem from YOU. I would like someone to quote a valid unrefuted argument from TheSkeptic.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Can anyone actually find me where in the argument TS made a valid argument, as in one that had substantiation and was not refuted?"

Sure:

"If you refer to the previous rounds for the definition of MMR (I won't re-copy&paste), it maintains that though moral values are relative on factors such as social upbringings, economic standing, religious influences, etc., moral statements are STILL TRUTH-APT. This is the crucial element, because though MMR claims moral values are relative, they are still capable of being truth or false. On the other hand, emotivism is specifically a non-cognitivist position that asserts moral utterances are representations of the speaker's feelings and are NOT truth-apt. A clear analogy to this are sentiments concerning favorite food dishes or music - there is no superior song or superior flavor of ice cream."

You clearly don't understand the difference between a cognitive and a non-cognitive statement. Moral statements can't be both "subjective" and truth-apt without implying the absurd conclusion that all facts are subjective, ergo MMR is false by modus tollens, as TheSkeptic rightly pointed out.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Anyone?
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 on the epistemic subjectivism point only because Con didn't seem to understand what he was arguing about. In R2, Pro shows that the reasoning leading to MMR logically also leads to epistemic subjectivism. Con's response seemed not to ever get beyond "I don't support that". Con also simply conceded the emotivism point, evidently not understanding it's significance to the resolution. If Con was defending emotivism as opposed to MMR, then his case wouldn't be applicable in defense of his position. Pro's arguments mostly ended in R2, with him spending the rest of the time simply explaining his arguments to Con. Con seemed more or less not to fully grasp the difference between non-realist meta-ethical theories.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Finally I can vote. For reasons tediously explained in the comment ages ago, vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "I feel like I'm doing a commentary more than a debate" - indeed, fairly dominating, though false argument
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 7 years ago
LaissezFaire
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 
Vote Placed by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by annhasle 7 years ago
annhasle
TheSkepticCerebral_NarcissistTied
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