The Instigator
polish666
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Metaethical Moral Relativism

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...
Kinesis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,430 times Debate No: 17944
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

polish666

Pro

Even if it were established that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements that cannot be rationally resolved, and that these disagreements are more significant than whatever agreements there may be, it would not immediately follow that MMR is correct. Other nonobjectivist conclusions might be drawn. In particular, opponents of objectivism might argue for moral skepticism, that we cannot know moral truths, or for a view that moral judgments lack truth-value (understood to imply a rejection of relative truth-value). Hence, proponents of MMR face two very different groups of critics: assorted kinds of moral objectivists and various sorts of moral nonobjectivists. The defender of MMR needs to establish that MMR is superior to all these positions, and this would require a comparative assessment of their respective advantages and disadvantages. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider the alternative positions (see cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism, moral anti-realism, moral epistemology, moral realism, and skepticism, moral). What can be considered are the challenges the proponent of MMR faces and what may be said in response to them.
Kinesis

Con

Ok, I'm pretty much just taking this to get it off the challenge page. Pro has the burden of proof for demonstrating MMR to be correct, and a plagiarised paragraph from here [1] that doesn't even seem to have much to do with the resolution doesn't do that. Vote Con.

[1] http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk...;
Debate Round No. 1
polish666

Pro

polish666 forfeited this round.
Kinesis

Con

Kinesis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Polish clearly won this one.
Posted by polish666 6 years ago
polish666
im pro for it
i just finnised reading the republic by plato and the satanic bible by Anton lavey
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 6 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
These are the ramblings of a madman. I would be careful if I were the congresswoman in HIS district.
Posted by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Lordknukle
You aren't making it clear what position you are taking. Needs to be deleted
Posted by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
If Polish decides to distinguish which stance he is on I will accept challenge only because I am interested on where this debate will go.
Posted by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
Time for this debate to be removed.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Well that was an interesting comment.
Posted by polish666 6 years ago
polish666
when im dead you'll know just who i am life is hell earth is hell every one thats listening i want to know why you hate me for being who iam i now know that im forever dirt in your eyes and if your reading this my liver is rotting away like the night, wene your home alone you fear the dead come knocking on you door i just want you to know that im dirt and will allways be dirt when im dead you'll know just who i am
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Actually, it's just a random paragraph copied from that article.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Largely copied and pasted from here: http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk... . Not sure of the point.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
polish666KinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Polish666, make sure to not plagiarize and not explain it by stating that you want us to consider you 'dirt in your eyes' and threaten us by claiming that, as a dead spirit, you'll be knocking on our doors. Seriously, did you forget any of the talismans or charms we could put on our doors, polish?---All seven points for Con, since polish666 did not bother to write an original argument.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
polish666KinesisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a plagarized first round and forfeit.