Morality Is Subjective
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 1/8/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 4 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 5,686 times | Debate No: | 43573 | ||
 Pro Resolution Morality Is Subjective Definitions Morality: The differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). Subjective: The perspective that assesses the moral quality of intentions, decisions, and actions in a way that is sensitive to agents’ epistemic circumstances. Objective: The perspective that assesses the moral quality of intentions, decisions, and actions in a way that is not sensitive to agents’ epistemic circumstances. Burden of proof The burden of proof will be shared. Pro has to argue that there is more reason to believe that morality is subjective than objective, while con has to argue there is equal or more reason to believe that morality is objective than subjective.
R1: Acceptance. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. R4: Closing arguments. No new arguments allowed. Rules: No semantics allowed |
 |
|
Pro Introduction: Let me begin by thanking my opponent for his participation in this debate. I am looking forward to a stimulating and provocative exchange. In this debate I will defend two basic contentions. Contention 1: There are good reasons to think that morality is subjective Contention 2: There are not comparably good reasons to think that morality is objective I will leave it up to my opponent to present his case in favor of objective morality before I respond to it. In my opening remarks I will give 5 arguments why I think the view of subjective morality is true. Arguments: A1: The hiddenness of objective morality There is no evidence that objective morality exists. That is to say, there is no evidence that moral values and duties are valid and binding independent of human opinion. The fact that there exist moral disagreement between cultures, communities and individuals makes it more reasonable to believe that morality is indeed dependent of human opinion, since we lack a non-arbitrary standard to judge by. The existence of different and sometimes opposite views points out that morality is subjective. We can see this when other opinions are lacking, the concept objective morality becomes meaningless. For example, if one individual lived in a social vacuum on his own, he then could create his own standards of what is right and wrong, for there is no one to approve or disapprove of a given action. [1] Furthermore, it also telling that, because of moral disagreements, some people are apparently not aware of this objective morality. Since there exist no way to determine who is correct and who is not, we can therefore deduct that morality is indeed subjective. A2: Morality is variable Every age has its own morality. If objective morality actually exists we would not expect it to change. Furthermore, what is morally good in community A may be wrong in another community B. It is entirely dependent on the values that we choose are good. It is also dependent on the situation. What good is for person A in a given situation may be wrong for person B. Again, it comes down to what one personally regards as right and wrong. This also shows in the consequences of certain actions. One person might feel guilt after he commits a murder, while another may not. Under the view objective morality this makes no sense, for there are no objective criteria to view one more correct than the other. A3: You cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ Objective morality would be merely descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It would tell us how things are, not how they ought to be. It does not come with an obligation to adhere to it, nor is there an objective reason why we should behave according to it. Take the act of stealing for example. Simply stating that one gets harmed during the process does not make it wrong. Brute facts about how the world is, does not tell us how it should be. There is a gap in between, where an evaluation must take place, which is subjective. A4: Morality is man-made Morality is a set of rules to which people ought to live. Without sentient beings and the ability to act, there cannot exist such a thing as morality. A value is not an object; it is a function of the mind. To be objective you have to exist independently of the mind. The word "morality" is a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in our minds. If there is no consciousness, then there is no morality. In a universe filled with stones for example, there is no morality, because conscious agents, that are aware of change, are necessary requirement for morality to exist. If objective morality always naturally existed, then this implies some teleological characteristic to the universe. We live on a little speck of dust in an ever expanding universe vast and ancient. There is no ground to believe that the universe exist with the human species in mind. Since consciousness is a unique feature of the human race and the humans did not always exist, we can deduct that objective morality did not always exist. Humans cannot create objective morality. Therefore, morality is subjective. [2] A5: Morality is evolved Humans are evolved animals. Over the past of the history of our species, we became socially inclined. Rules were made to make a group function well. A pragmatic moral system was developed that enabled us to cooperate and maximized our chance of survival. When we gained higher consciousness, we were able to make moral decisions. The fact that we are able to make moral decisions makes us moral agents. This fact sets us apart from other animals. We don’t regard other animals as moral agents. This is because we other animals are not able to make moral decisions. [3] But because moral decisions are a function of the human mind, it is therefore arbitrary in its very nature. Furthermore, it also tells us that morality is individual learned. First, from our evolved developed dispositions. Secondly, from our parents, our peers and our education, thereby indirectly highly influenced by our culture or religion. This then further shapes our emotions and opinions. [4] Thus, I submit, it is reasonable to argue, that also from an evolutionary perspective, morality is subjective. Conclusion: In conclusion, we have seen 5 arguments to think that subjective morality is the correct and more rational view. Together, I think, these arguments I offered constitute a powerful case that morality is subjective. We have yet to see my opponent’s case. My opponent needs to show that all my arguments are invalid or unsound. Thereafter, he needs to build his own case that shows that morality is objective. If my opponent wants to show that morality is objective, he needs to provide a fundamental system that offers us criteria by which we judge what is right and what is wrong. For example, the utilitarian view that we ought to maximize happiness and reduce suffering. Then he must offer a method by which we objectively justify these criteria as being in fact good, in this case utility. This is because even if the conclusion is objective, the premise might be subjective, which still would be arbitrarily and thus not objective. At last, he must provide an epistemological mechanism by which we can assess and determine this objective morality, for if there exist none we would not be able to become aware and act upon it. And we can therefore render it as practically useless and regard it as nonexistent. Until and unless he does this, I think we can conclude that morality is subjective. Affirmed Sources
[1]http://www.rationality.net... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [4] http://philosophynow.org...
 Con Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to type a full response, so I will wait until next round to present my opening arguments. I am sorry for any inconvenience. |
 |
|
Pro Extending all arguments. My opponent has violated the rules of conduct, to which he agreed to by accepting this debate. The opening arguments are to be made in Round 2, as was stated in Round 1. It's a shame my opponent has not complied with the arrangement of this debate, as I was looking forward to my opponents case. Furthermore, this will have some negative consequences. We have less rounds to debate at our disposal. Also, my opponent has one more round for rebuttal and he has more time to respond to my arguments as well. Anyhow, my case stands firmly and I will continue await the first move of my opponent. Con I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the exact response I wanted. I will show how this fits in later, but now to my opening arguments. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. [1] In this case he was talking about two people quarrelling, but he shows you can never say someone was wrong unless there is a standard by which you measure all moral actions. If Morality is Subjective then there is no right or wrong because there is no standard for measuring morality, but we each have a moral standard, showing us that morality is more objective than subjective. I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. [1] In the book Abolition of Man in the appendix there are many examples of showing how morality has been the same. |
 |
|
Pro Introduction I would like to thank my opponent for his response. In my last round I will give a rebuttal to my opponent's case and simultaneously further my own arguments. Rebuttal Law of Nature (A2) My opponent seems to argue we cannot have moral disagreement, unless morality is objective. Here my opponent offers no justification whatsoever to ground morality to be objective. “[…] how could such laws exist in the absence of any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue that "murder is wrong" existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word "law" implies an objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called "moral laws", because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of sentience.“ [1] My opponent states that because we disagree over what is right and wrong, this points towards an objective morality. However, I do not see how this is the case. If we all have the same standards, there would be no need to quarrel. But this is exactly what we would expect if morality is subjective! An objective answer to a dispute is not necessary. For example, I can debate, with a friend of mine, whether this piece of music is better than the other. However, I recognize that just because I can ask the question, there might not be an objective answer to it. Common Morality (A2) My opponent seems to argue that moral stability of certain topics make it therefore objective, this is a non-sequitur however. Because there exist some overlap between moral standards, it does not, in any way, imply objectivity. It merely hints at a common ground of which people approve of, which is still subjective. Moreover, I do not, at all, concede my opponent’s point, that morality does not vary over time and location. For example, the Aztecs are known for their human sacrifices and deemed this as a moral. In the middle ages, the stealing of a bread was sentenced by the death penalty. In the near past men would sell other people as their property. Today, in the middle-east, homosexuality is seen as immoral. Again, I submit, this is exactly what we would expect if morality is subjective. My opponent cannot deny these differences and if he wants to explain this, he needs to offer us an objective criterion and justification. The hypothesis that an objective moral standard exists, but some cultures have inferior epistemic access to it is less plausible than the hypothesis that moral disagreement exist because people have different opinions about morality. Animals (A4 and A5) Here, my opponent seems to equate order and structure with morality, but these are not equivalent. He implies that animals ought to behave the way they do. We do not regard animals as moral agents, because animals lack higher consciousness. Therefore, they cannot make moral decisions. For example, when a lions kills his prey, we do not regard his action as immoral. All you have shown here is that we have a need to create a pragmatic system that allows for our survival. But there is no reason to believe that this is an inherently, objective ‘good’. My opponent further states that it would be immoral not to work and gain benefits. He fails to show why this would be objectively immoral, but simply asserts his opinion. Kant (A1) My opponent fails to meet his burden of proof to show this moral system is objective, it seems as if he does not even try. More on Kant in my last point. Objections Well, I was merely ventilating my disappointment. I do not see a contradiction at all. Quite the opposite, I can give my moral opinion, because morality is subjective. If morality would be objective, opinion would be irrelevant. Also, because I believe morality is subjective, it does not follow I therefore have no moral standard. I think, what is important to understand, is that the right to criticize is related to the existence of morality . Why do you need to have the right to express your opinion and act upon it? "Well, because it would be simply immoral to do what you like!" This is a paradox, because if objective morality does not exist , then you no longer have to get that right. For example, without objective morality a potential psychopathic killer can do what he wants , right? But if a murderer can do what he wants, well , then so can you and I. In a world without objective morality it is no problem act upon our personal opinions and so it is no problem to protect ourselves. We might help others to disarm him and possibly throw him in jail. If you think about it, this is roughly the reality. Triangles (A4) We, as people, often make the mistake to provide a process or a function with a label, and anything with a label we soon consider as an entity, which then must exist. I think you should be wary for that trap. For example, when a football player makes a goal from a distance, then we speak of "a nice shot", but of course that shot does not exist in reality. The ball, the player and goal exist, but there is no such thing as ‘the shot'. Evolution (A5) My opponent seems to equate evolution with naturalism, but these are not equivalent. He further seems to insinuate a deeper skepticism towards the validity of the evolutionary theory. I won’t go any further on this subject, but there is overwhelming evidence that substantiate the evolutionary theory.[2] It seems like my opponent is straw manning my position. I did not make a case for naturalism nor rationality, so I’m not sure how this would undermine my argument. Anyhow, my opponent seems to argue that if naturalism is true, then everything is non-rational. The arguments implies that if naturalism is true, no valid reasoning is possible, thus, ‘if P then Q, P, therefore Q’ would not be true. This is obviously false, so if naturalism is true valid reasoning is possible. Furthermore, if reason is indeed naturally evolved, and naturalism would be true, then surely we are justified using reason. Correct Moral Behavior (A3) On the categorical imperative, although it does sometimes work, most of the time it does not. For example, under the categorical imperative there is nothing objectively wrong with adultery, because this maxim does not lead to any contradictions, thus does not violate our rationality. There is no reason given why we ought to obey the categorical imperative, if there is no contradiction involved. Furthermore, it itself leads in some situations to conflict, because it negates consequences. For example, when a murderer forces us to tell where his victims are and we know the right answer, we should tell him the truth, because truth telling is an universal duty under the categorical imperative. Conclusion In conclusion then, you will recall from the second round that I said I was going to defend two basic contentions in this debate. I believe that my opponent has failed to show that my arguments are invalid or unsound, in the end he could not refute my arguments, thus I think I adequately upheld my case. Furthermore, he failed to meet his main burden of proof to show that morality is objective. My opponent did not provide a fundamental system that offers us criteria by which we judge what is right and what is wrong. He further did not offer a method by which we objectively justify these criteria as being in fact good. And at last he failed to provide an epistemological mechanism by which we can assess and determine this objective morality. I think we can conclude that morality is subjective. I urge a vote for pro. Affirmed Sources
Con I thank my opponent for giving a thoughtful responses, but there seems to be a misunderstanding on a few issues. Law of Nature (A2) You did get the main point that in order to debate about morality there must be some correct objective morality. To respond to the idea if we all had the same standard there would be no quarrelling, people disagree on solutions to arithmetic problems too, but that doesn't mean that math is subjective it just means at least one of them is wrong. Further, you can't say that another person solution is wrong unless there is an objective correct answer. Also, when they quarrel people don't say well morality is subjective; therefore, did nothing wrong. They instead will give excuses such as being in a bad mood. This show how deeply you believe in such a objective morality because you try to show that you didn't violate the standard there was just a special exception. To compare morality to music is not a very good comparison. Morality is not a matter of preference, like I prefer to think that murder isn't wrong, because you could never make any laws regarding behavior, or judge anyone's behavior whether it is rape, murder, assault because they would think it was ok to do that. Further, they would think the laws prohibiting such things are unjust. The first video goes into more depth about the law of nature than I could on here. Anyways, there are tunes that people like better for music. There is something called common meter [1] which is used in numerous songs. See the second video to see some of the songs. Common Morality (A2) It is not just some overlap, it is majority overlap. With such a similarity between all those there must be some objective standard, or else we should have seen totally different moralities. We cannot picture such a thing though, image a place were a soldier was admired for running away in battle or a person who is proud that he double crossed everyone who showed the most kindness to them. As far as the Aztecs they did human sacrifices to please the Gods or they would be angry with them [5] , so they did it by force not because they thought it was ok. It was the equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to give them all the banks money. You do things you would not normally do out of fear. Now with slavery, People do things they know is wrong for their own gain, like someone fudging numbers to give themselves money. This does not mean that the math was subjective, but rather it is objective they just did it wrong. Animals (A4 and A5) Order & structure are not equivalent to morality and that was never my point. Animals are moral agents; true they don't ponder some of the really complex moral ideas such as is abortion, euthanasia, suicide morally permissible. They understand morality such as don't go on the bed, or stay with the pack, or don't mess with the Alpha. Without moral rules there is no structure or order because it would be a state of anarchy. As for how the one statement would be objectively immoral, it is a contradiction under Kant. Kant (A1) & Correct Moral Behavior (A3) You have understand Kant all wrong. Firstly, what you mention about contradictions is called a perfect duty, and there is more to it than that. Second, adultery is a contradiction, as you must think that all people would commit adultery, but then it would void the reason to have marriage anyways since it is suppose to be one man and one woman who are faithful to each other; therefore, no one would get married because they would commit adultery but then adultery would be impossible since no one is married. Concluding, adultery is a contradiction, and therefore always wrong. Thirdly, the inquiry to murder as you pointed out is the biggest objection always pointed out, but there is a good answer. Yes, you have to tell the truth, but that doesn't mean you have to talk at all. There would be nothing immoral about calling the police and not telling the murderer anything. Fourthly, you missed the other half of Kant's moral philosophy with imperfect duties. These are not ones that lead to contradictions, but ones that have exceptions. For example, driving cars is not immoral, but driving a car that exhaust vast amounts of toxic gases would be. The third video here is about Kant and I think you could learn a lot. Further, this is an objective standard. Human Rights & Logically Consistent There is a contradiction, or at least it was totally pointless. If morality is subjective then giving your moral opinion is pointless since it is your personal belief, which has no objective value; therefore, contributes nothing to the debate. Also, just because you can give your opinion about does not mean it is subjective. I could say I believe triangles have 4 sides; therefore, shapes of triangles are subjective. However, this would be silly to say in both cases. That isn't what reality is. Here is what reality is. We believe there are certain rights that it would be wrong to violate. [4] Which if morality is subjective you could not have any laws addressing any moral questions since as soon as you make a law about it, it is objective. Further, then you are forcing your morality, which has no objective value, onto others. It would be the equivalent to saying that monopoly is everyone favorite game to play. Because if morality is subjective and just a matter of preference then to make laws about it would be hypocritical. In fact in your situation you stopping the killer, would be wrong if you asked the killer, and they would say you are committing a immoral act which you can not say he is wrong because it is subjective. Triangles (A4) Morality is not a process or a function. Morality is a concept, so I fail to see how this has any merit. Evolution (A5) Naturalism: a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. [2] That is exactly what evolution is. So, to claim it is a strawman is ridiculous. Evolution has helped explain small things like beak changes, but when you get to bigger topics such as origins of Muli-cellular organism, and origins of sexs there are many problems. [3] This undermines your argument because you said "from an evolutionary perspective, morality is subjective.", so if I eliminate the evolutionary perspective then your argument has no validity then. Further, his actual response to the argument is very strange. He says "‘if P then Q, P, therefore Q’ would not be true.", but this is not true. P=naturalism is true, and Q=Everything is non-rational. If (Naturalism is true) then (everything is non-rational), (Naturalism is true), therefore (Everything is non-rational). I am not sure how this is not true, I explained everything. IF reason is naturally evolved, then yes, naturalism would be true. However, like I stated reason cannot come from non-reason. If your reasoning came from an undirected process that follow laws of physics, and chemical laws, then how did it produce something, reasoning, outside of the laws? If it didn't then your reasoning is not rational, but a result of non-rational actions. Conclusion I have shown there is equal or more reason to believe that morality is objective than subjective. Sources [1] http://www.britannica.com... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://www.ancient.eu.com... |
 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 2 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 2 |
| Fox-McCloud | Guidestone | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 3 |
Actually, I am the only person to post a comment to your debating rules.
I actually think a couple of your rules are good.
One in particular is about the DDO members that are not quoting their sources properly when they list an entire book or article without quoting exactly what they are taking from that source. "To reference large passages, it is advised to use block quotations with proper references."
However, I believe these are grave errors and should result in more than just the loss of the conduct point, especially plagiarism. If you do that on most of your sources, you lose the points for sources. If it is proven that you have committed plagiarism, you automatically lose the debate.
What is funny though is that Pro did this with his sources, i.e., not quoting properly and you rightfully did not give him the points; but, other voters did. If Pro's sources were not quoted properly, how could his arguments be anything but his opinions? You don"t win debate arguments by stating your personal opinions. If no one else supports your opinions in a serious debate, you lose. If you are arguing that Batman is better than Superman, who cares.
I love your rule "A.1.1. Plagiarism is not allowed. Plagiarism is not only copying/pasting exact passages but it also could involve copying/pasting material with a few changes while using the same methods of presentation of the original author such as linguistic style, similar diagrams, same sources, etc."
What is funny though, Pro is guilty of this and I have proven it in my RFD comments. It may not be deliberate, but he did not quote it and cite the sources.
I really love your rule "A.2.3. The use of the comments section to argue against someone (whether participant or not) by any of the participants while the debate is in the debating or voting period is considered a violation." I agree, but this should result in an automatic forfeit.
http://www.debate.org....
That should tell you something about what people think about your rules.
Have you figured it out yet?
I even have my own debating rules for my debates that could be found here, http://www.debate.org...
I don"t know if you are quoting Roy verbatim or making stuff up. This idea that the "oral tradition" trumps the rules as stated in the DDO FAQs is silly. As far as I know, Roy is not a moderator or employed by Juggle, LLC. So, his opinion on anything is not worth more than anyone else"s opinion.
Nate Simmons still works at DDO, so I may write him and quote what you have said, and what you claim Roy said. How do you think he will respond?
As for you changing your RFD, at this point you can"t.
And, your statement just shows that you have no clue. Now you are making up the idea of a "non-technical forfeit. What nonsense!
Yes there is something else that perplexes me, your inability to understand the rules and to follow them.
Let me put it in simpe words, the community does not follow what Nate Simmons says, but we have our own oral tradition, if you may, about what DDO standards are.
If you want to argue that it wasn't a "technical forfeit", I can easily that Con did not provide an argument and therefore made a "non-technical forfeit' or better, "an act of misconduct by not providing an argument" which made him lose the conduct point.
Is there anything about this which you have trouble understanding?
You still don"t understand what a forfeit is under the Debate section of DDO"s FAQs " Facts, Answers, Questions, which is 224 questions with answers. Your RFD " Reason(s) for Decision was mainly sarcasm e.g., "This could work in the theological school of yellow mellow," and a misstatement of the obvious. Pro was the person cherry picking from most of his sources; but, you overlooked that for some reason. Did you even read Pro"s sources? If you did, you would know that what I just stated is true.
You seem to be confused by DDO"s FAQs. "FAQ is a noun that means: A list of frequently asked questions and their answers about a given subject."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
And, what racism are you talking about; and, who are you calling parasites?
Now it appears you are threatening me. How immature can you get? Your profile states you are 21 years old. Are you an example of how all adults in Mont-Liban, Lebanon act? I think not!
"GWL-CPA = DESTROYED."
"GWL-CPA = DESTROYED... TWICE"
Why are you typing in all caps? Are you shouting that you want me destroyed?
You again apparently have very little understanding of the English language. And, again, "ok" is not slang in American or UK English. I pointed out the Middle East to only show that as a possible reason for your ignorance of the English Language.
And, this comment shows more of your ignorance:
"Forfeiting the debate can be through not providing an argument. I don't much follow what the "debating tips on how to vote" says as it was written by a Juggle CEO, and not an actual expert on debating. I view forfeiting like I would view it in an actual debate. Saying, "sorry, I can't provide an argument" is forfeiture."
"Debating Tips on How to Vote" was written by Nate Simmons, an Administrator at DDO, not Stephanie Leffler, the CEO of Juggle, LLC, which I will explain in more detail later.
Again, the FAQs " Facts, Answers, and Questions are not tips; they do reference you to a few tips on how to debate via links.
DDO FAQs " Facts, Answers, and Questions are composed of 224 questions, with answers and additional facts. It is divided into 6 sections. It is approximately 3,848 words long with 18,333 characters without the spaces. I pasted all the FAQ"s Questions, Answers and Facts into a Word document and into Excel to get the above information.
1.Joining Debate.org
2.Account Profile and Settings
3.Community
4.Debates
5.Opinions
6.Forums
The word "tips" is used twice in those 3,848 words, where you are given links to where you can get tips on how to debate; and to articles to help you become a better debater.
For example:
"I'm about to debate for the first time. Do you have any tips?"
http://www.debate.org...
"Our members have created several tutorials specifically for this purpose. Consult the DDO tutorial and Debate.org Orientation threads for help. Also be sure to read our article Tips for a Better Debate."
There are other links in the answers on other topics, e.g., Code of Conduct, Site Tutorial, and Orientation.
But again, the DDO FAQs" page has 224 questions with 224 answers to those questions. They are not tips but facts.
You statement "Forfeiting the debate can be through not providing an argument. I don't much follow what the "debating tips on how to vote" says as it was written by a Juggle CEO, and not an actual expert on debating. I view forfeiting like I would view it in an actual debate. Saying, "sorry, I can't provide an argument" is forfeiture" is nonsense and shows what you don"t know.
Your inflammatory and incorrect statement about Stephanie Leffler " CEO of Juggle, LLC is just more proof of how you are very ill-informed. Stephanie did not write tips on how to vote; Nate Simmons wrote the tips on "How to Vote."
I think Stephanie Leffler " CEO and her husband Ryan Noble " President of Juggle, LLC have degrees from Washington and Lee University, and one of their classmates Dave Levinson is CFO of Juggle.com.
I don"t know what their degrees are in or if they have any debate experience; but what does that matter? They have highly qualified staff that know lots about debating and running a debate web site.
Washington and Lee University is ranked #14 in the nation in "National Liberal Arts Colleges. "Washington and Lee University has two undergraduate divisions: the College, and the Williams School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics. The school"s only graduate school is its highly ranked School of Law is the oldest law school in the USA. The school was named after George Washington, who gave a generous endowment to the school, and Robert E. Lee, who was one of the college"s presidents following the Civil War."
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...
http://news.blogs.wlu.edu...
The tips on "How to Vote" was written by Nate Simmons on September 4, 2008 before DDO existed. Nate Simmons is a DDO administrator employed by Juggle, LLC who must have been an employee of WebCorp, LLC that Juggle, LLC hired when they purchased WebCorp in 2010.
"The feedback from the community has been extremely positive. Users are happy with the current changes and are already submitting their requests for the next release," reports Nate Simmons, Customer Support Manager." "Debate.com has plans to add more features and services in the near future that compliment its unique debating platform, including user created polls, blogs, and forums. "Our ultimate goal is to become the first choice for active Internet users when it comes to choosing a forum to debate and discuss the issues," says owner and sole developer, Philip Ferreira."
http://www.harvardir.org...
Debate.org was founded by WebCorp, LLC in the summer of 2007. Debate.org was created out of a special passion for politics and debate by Phillip & Crystal Ferreira, the site's founders. "Juggle.com, the company that builds and creates websites focused on engaging users with quality content, acquired the website Debate.org from WebCorp owner Philip Ferreira for $130,000. This was at the end of 2010, I think.
http://fusible.com...
Therefore, NiqashMotawadi3, before you write anything more, please get your facts straight; you are boring us with misinformation.