The Instigator
Jack212
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Molesting children is wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,320 times Debate No: 36836
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Jack212

Pro

1st round is acceptance only.
BOP is on me.
Mikal

Con

God I am probably going to regret taking this.

I accept.

Not that I promote molesting minors by any means, but just the fact that he claimed it was "wrong" was to tempting.
Debate Round No. 1
Jack212

Pro

I know you'll regret it. This was schmuck bait. Subjective morality means I cannot meet BOP, so I'll get to laugh when everybody votes against "Molesting children is wrong".

That said, here are some serious reasons:

1. It harms children physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually.

2. It increases the probability they will become abusers themselves, or seek out abusive relationships.

3. It increases the spread of STDs among the priesthood.
Mikal

Con

Well he has already conceded, so not much to argue. I was hoping to actually get a good debate on philosophy. I take these debates few and far between and I just have to be in the mood for it. As he already stated, he can not meet his BOP on this so the debate is already over from this point. I will still offer up my contentions, because it is a rare occasion when I take a debate like this. It seems my adversary is not very fluent with philosophy or has ever endeavored to even take on looking deeper into this, because it is quite possible to meet the BOP on this topic. It is all with how you approach the issue. Since he has chosen not to do so, and as I have already stated this debate is probably over before it starts.

Topic we are discussing

"Molesting children is wrong"

For this statement to actually be correct, he has to show that this is wrong objectively. It could have been worded better if he would have said " molesting children is considered wrong in america" or "is considered wrong by most", but that is not the case, he is claiming that it is objectively wrong.

I was going to build a huge case on subjective morality vs objective morality and comparing it to what moral relativism entails. It is all ontology vs epistemology with most of this debate, but seeing as how he already claimed he can not meet his BOP, there is no point to go into the detail I had originally planned.

I will offer up one major contentions for this debate.

Contention 1

How do we gauge morality.

To claim that something is objectively wrong, you would have to find a standard in which to gauge it. Christians use this as God and even some atheists will use the well being of other humans or happiness as a way to gauge it.

This is a quote from Paul Kurtz and I think it sums up the majority of my view point on this issue.

" The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral."

Sub point A

What is wrong in (Society A) may not be wrong in (Society B).

Where as most people think molesting children is wrong in America, it may not be so in other cultures.

Example A: In america molesting children is wrong

Example B: In some tribes in Africa it could be considered perfectly acceptable to marry a child at the age of 10 or 12 and have sex with them.

In both of these societies this is their objective standard. There is a huge difference between saying there "is" objective morality or there "can be" objective morality. There can be objective morality within both societies on different issues, but to say there is objective morality within the universe itself, you would have to show what your gauge for that is. He has failed to present one. When we compare Society A to Society B, we as people of modern culture would think Society B are wrong. This is because we are using our sense of objectivity morality as a gauge. What we know to be objectively right or wrong, we are using that as a way to say they are objectively right or wrong. This is not the case in all circumstances.

This is where you would have to weigh in ontology vs epistemology. This point I have made can be contested, but it can hold true as well. It just depends on how you perceive the definition of "objective".

http://plato.stanford.edu...


In Closing

I wish my adversary would have taken the time to actually look into this topic rather than saying he would lose from the start. It is not to often I actually find the want or need to debate these types of issues, and the one time I have chosen to do so lately it has been a let down.

As he has already claimed

"He can not meet his BOP" but what he actually means to say is "he does not know how"

Since he has claimed he can not meet his BOP and I have already addressed how this issue can be subjective, I think the most logical conclusion is to vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Jack212

Pro

Yep, vote Con. Child molestation is good and healthy. By the way, Con has demonstrated why I disrespect Philosophy. Con invested time and brain power in a stupid debate, while a rational person would have rolled their eyes at my trolling and done something else with their time.
Mikal

Con

Extend all arguments

No I just thought you had the intellect to produce a semi intelligent argument. Proven wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jack212 3 years ago
Jack212
@ mrsatan

That's not correct. But rather than type out a comment to you explaining why, I'm challenging you to a debate on it.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Also, I find it kind of funny that Pro disrespects philosophy, considering it's the study of knowledge, reality, and existence. This implies that he disrespects at least one of those things; knowledge, reality, existence, or possibly even studying itself. (I'm gonna go ahead and guess the first one)
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
The thing I'll never get about theists and god is that they give god traits they couldn't possibly know about. The most common three being perfect in power, knowledge, and goodness. I could understand claiming God would have more knowledge than we do, and certainly more power, albeit not the perfect part. But really, it's the goodness part that I take issue with. If there is a being that created the universe, I figure it's more likely that being was just bored and wanted a sitcom.
Posted by thg 3 years ago
thg
@Mikal: Well, I would just offer that I don't "use" God like the average fundamentalist or evangelical. I'm seminary trained and am quite liberal about lots of things, and I'm into Tillich, Kierkegaard, Bultmann, and several moderate to liberal Bible scholars. If I use the Bible, I'm more likely to paint broad strokes rather than just use a proof-text verse here or there. My view is that morality may not be objective...insofar as humans wouldn't be able to describe or follow an "objective" morality even if they were given one and even if they tried...but that we can come up with standards that can be applied on a near universal basis. The alternative, it seems to me, is "anything goes"...and I don't believe you are preaching that gospel. So, objective or no, I believe we could discuss/debate a number of topics. If, on the other hand, you want to show that theological underpinnings are neither necessary nor persuasive in formulating moral standards, or that moral standards themselves are neither necessary nor applicable to all humans, then, sure, I'll be happy to debate you. Name your resolution. It sounds like we might actually have a productive debate!
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just all depends on where I stand. I will never normally take topics and play devils advocate, it weakens the strength of the debate.

As far as morality, in all honesty I would be hard pressed to prove this but I don't think there is a such thing as right and wrong or moral and immoral. I believe anything is permissible given the right situation, which would be more of moral relativism.

I can even see how some people would argue objective morality, but my objection is when you use a "God" as the gauge for it.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I actually do not fully believe what I debated, I just knew I could win if i presented a case without him knowing or being capable to defend objective morality

Before I take anything define your last quote

"theological underpinnings"

The way you are wording that makes me think of scripture. If you were to use the bible or God as a moral compass the debate would lose its purpose. If that is the case we would have to debate, can morality be objective without God.

That one I would consider.
Posted by thg 3 years ago
thg
Too bad about this debate. I believe it is a TOTALLY legit topic...to echo Mikal...not because I disagree with the resolution, but because I believe most of us are far too reliant upon unquestioned moral presuppositions. I believe sexual morality is a very complicated subject and too many people take way too many things for granted (you know, the ol' "EVERYONE knows pedophilia is wrong"...and "EVERYONE knows homosexual behavior is OK", etc., etc. Whatever happened to basic Philosophy 101, where we question even the most cherished presuppositions, and what better place to do it than in a debate on pedophilia?

I believe Mikal (CON) makes some good points, and I would love to debate/discuss this topic with him. My view is that theological underpinnings are some of our BEST and ONLY viable bases for asserting sexual moral standards...and that some of our sexual moral standards are about as universal as is possible in human experience. So, Mikal, let's go for it, no?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
If he would have specified it was a troll debate, I would have never taken this. I have beaten him in 3 debates already I believe, I just wanted to see how someone would argue this as Pro. Grats on making your meme come true btw XD
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
If he would have specified it was a troll debate, I would have never taken this. I have beaten him in 3 debates already I believe, I just wanted to see how someone would argue this as Pro. Grats on making your meme come true btw XD
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
My meme came true....
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Jack212MikalTied
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: "Yep, vote Con. Child molestation is good and healthy." This statement should not have come from pro. I agree with the resolution before and after the debate, but even without pro pulling that (not giving him conduct, since he did not even try to debate before conceding), con looks to have given the stronger argument.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Jack212MikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is wrong.
Vote Placed by thg 3 years ago
thg
Jack212MikalTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO conceded and forfeited. Even if we may believe moral subjectivity leads to all manner of "anything goes", we still should try to defend what we believe are better (or even objective) moral standards. PRO's premise that this whole scam debate scheme would demonstrate the futility of moral subjectivity doesn't cut it.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Jack212MikalTied
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: Forefit
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Jack212MikalTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never specified this was a troll debate. He conceded in R3, also his conduct in R3 was poor.