The Instigator
DATCMOTO
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
66 Points

Morality MUST be objective.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 15 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,977 times Debate No: 9212
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (85)
Votes (15)

 

DATCMOTO

Pro

DEFINITIONS: (from http://dictionary.reference.com...)

(1) MORALITY.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
6. morality play.
Origin: 1350–1400; ME moralite < LL mōrālitās. See moral, -ity
Synonyms:
1. See goodness.

(2) OBJECTIVE.

Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar
Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
Grammar
The objective case.
A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
ob�jec'tive�ly adv., ob�jec'tive�ness n.

MY ARGUMENT:

THAT in order for there to be morality (in any real sense at all) there MUST be an objective, universal standard.
The alternative; that morality is subjective, (an 'each to his own' mentality) is too horrifying to contemplate: it means that Adolf Hitlers 'morality' is just as valid as Mother Theresas morality.
EVEN if my opponent argues that Hitlers morality is 'subjectively' worse that Mother Theresas, he STILL has all of his work ahead of him AS:
How can anytrhing be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

MY EXAMPLE:

Kleptin makes me a cup of tea, (unlikely I know, but come with me on this) I complain that he has made the tea 'too strong'.
As Kleptin has never made me a cup of tea before he, quite rightly, is indignant: 'how was I to know how you like your tea?' he replys.

NOW, the statement 'too strong' is subjectively true in that, compared to how I usually take my tea, Kleptins effort was somewhat stronger..
BUT how about compared to the VERY FIRST CUP OF TEA EVER MADE?
THAT is the 'Object'.
Kleptins tea WILL have been EITHER stronger OR weaker than that first ever cuppa.
THAT, I submit, IS objectivity.
It is utterly inescapable.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and would like to point out that although there may be bad blood outside of this debate, I shall make this a conscious effort in not only debating seriously, but hopefully in educating both myself, my opponent, and the audience in techniques of debate.

My argument shall take the following format:

1. A discussion on what makes an argument an argument
2. The significance of a logical fallacy on the truth of an argument
3. A logical recap of my opponent's argument
4. Why my opponent's argument is logically fallacious
5. Cleaning up extra points made by my opponent
6. Conclusion

WHAT MAKES AN ARGUMENT AN ARGUMENT?

In the attempt to discover truth, we construct explanations from what we already know. Premises are statements of something we already know, which we string together using logic in order to develop a conclusion of what we want to prove. This is the manner by which we develop new truth from preexisting truth. An argument is sound when all the premises string through properly to the conclusion. An argument is valid when it is both sound, and when the premises are themselves truthful. Thus, there are three main ways that an argument can fail: It can either have incorrect premises, it can not follow logically, or both.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A LOGICAL FALLACY

A man with HIV appears normal to everyone else. It is only after a blood test that doctors can diagnose him with HIV. Similarly, we use logical arguments in every day situations. Most of the time, they are phrased in obscure ways that appear true, because we do not look at them with enough specificity. Examining an argument for logical fallacies is like applying a blood test. You catch things that bypass common sense, which is usually wrong. By scrutinizing, you can see whether or not a person's argument is flawed even if it seems truthful.

LOGICAL RECAP OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT

My opponent's argument is called a "Reductio Ad Absurdum", where we attempt to select true premises along with the thing we want to prove (assuming it is true) and show that IF it is true, then a logically fallacious situation will occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Take this example from wikipedia:

ASSUME X is an even prime number greater than 2, and follows the basic laws of mathematics.

1. X is divisible by 2
2. X is divisible by 1 and X and nothing else
3. X is not 2.
4. X is not divisible by 2 (since X is only divisible by 1 and X, and X is not 2).

Combining some of these derived statements, we may conclude: X is divisible by 2, and X is not divisible by 2.

This leads to a logically contradictory statement. Therefore, from this, we can say that there can be no even prime number greater than 2.

My opponent's Reductio ad Absurdum argument is as follows:

ASSUME Morality is subjective
1. Hitler's morality is subjectively valid
2. Mother Theresa's morality is equally subjectively valid
3. Hitler's morality is as valid as Mother Theresa's morality

This is a logically fallacious situation.

Therefore, Morality must not be subjective.

WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS

There are several things that are wrong here.

HIDDEN PREMISE/BEGGING THE QUESTION
First of all, there is a problem with the declaration of absurdity. Whereas the example by wikipedia showed that X is divisible by two AND not divisible by two and declared it absurd, my opponent is declaring it absurd because Hitler's morality cannot be subjectively equal or greater in validity than Mother Theresa's morality.

However, it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid. This is a "common sense" assumption made by my opponent, a premise he suggested but did not prove. Furthermore, if we assume as a premise that Hitler's morality was less valid than Mother Theresa's, this would be an assumption of Moral Objectivity. Moral Objectivity is defined by my opponent as a moral set that is intrinsically correct. Thus, my opponent's logical argument reduces down to this:

ASSUME Moral Subjectivity given Moral Objectivity
1. Morals are subjective
2. Morals are objective
3. Morals are both subjective and objective

This is logically fallacious.

Therefore, Morals must not be subjective.

We can see that this argument is invalid because he begs the question as a premise. Thus, while his argument has the appearance of one that is valid, it is not.

CLEANING UP EXTRA POINTS

I have clearly shown that my opponent's argument is severely flawed. Thus, in this section, I will clean up any extra points, pieces of evidence, or analogies my opponent has brought up along with his main argument from top to bottom.

1. Definitions: My opponent copied and pasted definitions but has not specified any. Thus, we will use common sense definitions as the debate has already started.

2. My opponent talks about "morality in the real sense". This is undefined and has potential for a logical fallacy. Morality exists because we can distinguish as individuals between right and wrong actions. This debate is about Objectivity vs Subjectivity, whether that ability to distinguish is justified on one scale, or only on the individual scale.

3. My opponent then says that we cannot decide what is subjectively better or worse with moral subjectivity. That is the definition of moral subjectivity. True moral validity is equal across the board. However, we as a group decide what actions are more or less moral from popularity. Much like how Blue Jeans come into fashion, or how females tend to wear pants more and dresses less.

4. Tea analogy:

My opponent's tea analogy is just a declaration that the true objective morality is the first morality to develop. However, this is flawed as I will demonstrate using his own analogy.

Tea was probably the result of an accident, as were many inventions of the past. The "true" tea may have been so bitter that no one wanted to drink it. The second tea might have been acceptable and thus, became more popular. However, there is absolutely no reason to say that any cup of tea is the right cup of tea (even the very first).

Was the first computer better than the computers we have today? Was the first lightbulb better than the ones we have today? Was the first telephone better than the telephones we have today?

If the first morality is used as the benchmark, it doesn't show that it is right. Objectivity is not having a standard. Objectivity is claiming that the standard IS the best, or is the correct one. Simply having a comparison for something does not show that there is objectivity.

The fact that the first ice cream flavor was "Cream" does not mean there is Objective ice cream flavor preference.

CONCLUSION

I have not only shown that my opponent's logical argument was completely flawed, but have also addressed each one of his extraneous points as well. My opponent has nothing outstanding.

In addition, I have made small arguments for moral subjectivity throughout my analysis of Moral Objectivity. Based on this, I negate the resolution.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience.
Debate Round No. 1
DATCMOTO

Pro

My opponents argument rests solely on the post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything.

"it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid."

Is this a true statement?

Do YOU (the reader/voter) agree with it?

Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's?

Do YOU wish to believe that we KNOW that we cannot know? (do you wish to believe an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION?)

So, IF we believe that Mother Theresa's morality is higher than Hitler's then in WHAT sense is it higher UNLESS there is a universal standard for it to be closer or further away from?

IF her morality is subjectively above his then it must be closer to the ideal OBJECTIVE morality.

Therefore morality MUST be objective.

A vote for Kleptin is a vote for NO morality and NEVER knowing.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall deviate from my usual method to suit the casual nature of my opponent's counterargument, which almost completely ignores all the detailed categorization and thought I put into my last round.

Since my opponent has not offered any response to my first round whatsoever, I will assume that he has conceded that his points fall under the logical fallacies I have mentioned and that at this point, he is just struggling to grasp at whatever he can get. In response, I will simply show how each and every phrase of his short response is either fallacious, untrue, irrelevant, or any combination of the three.

FIRST: "My opponents argument rests solely on the post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything."

My opponent is attempting to argue that my argument rests on a premise that is somehow unjustified.

1. Whether or not a premise is "post modern" has nothing to do with its truth value, making this statement logically useless in one way.

2. My argument never suggests that "we may not know anything", my argument includes the notion that what my opponent claims to "know" is unjustified and illogical, making this statement logically useless in a cumulative total of two ways.

3. My argument does not consist of just that one premise. It also shows how the entire structure of my opponent's argument is flawed, bringing the total for this single phrase to be logically useless in three different ways.

As a blanket comment, this was not a "post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything." This is an ancient philosophy stating that what we claim to know, we should give justification for. My opponent is simply trying to confuse and mislead the audience. What I request is simple: Prove to me that Mother Theresa's morality is more valid than Hitler's morality in an objective manner, and you win.

SECOND: "it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid."

"Is this a true statement?"

"Do YOU (the reader/voter) agree with it?"

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This is the flawed argument that somehow, what a large group of people deem to be correct, must be correct. In matters of morality, this can be confusing. However, do not let my opponent mislead you. My opponent is not trying to show the justification of a moral rule using popularity. He is trying to show that an OBJECTIVE MORALITY exists just because people will believe in one thing. Obviously, even if the entire audience believes that Mother Theresa was more moral than Hitler, it would not mean that Mother Theresa is OBJECTIVELY more moral than Hitler, it would only mean that Mother Theresa is overwhelmingly more SUBJECTIVELY moral than Hitler. Thus, this argument completely and totally fails in every single way.

THIRD: "Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's?"

Three things wrong with this one. It might be confusing because this is a loaded question in which my opponent combines several flawed statements and phrases it in a biased manner. Let us reduce it down to the constituents.

1. Mother Theresa's morality is above Adolf Hitler's
2. Kleptin's proposition entails that we do not KNOW this truth
3. The Audience has a choice whether or not to exist in the reality that #2 describes

Please note that when broken down, all three of the constituent notions are completely and totally false.

For #1, this is begging the question as it assumes an objective morality.

For #2, it is a loaded question based on #1 and it is a strawman misinterpretation of my argument, (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which has nothing to do with whether or not one is more moral than the other. My argument is that since my opponent's argument hinges on that flawed assumption, and since he has no justification for that assumption, his argument fails.

For #3, it is obviously false and a continuation of Argumentum Ad Populum. What the audience WISHES to believe has nothing to do with what is concretely true or false. I can WISH to believe that $1,000,000 is in my bank account, but no amount of wishing will make that so.

FOURTH: "Do YOU wish to believe that we KNOW that we cannot know? (do you wish to believe an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION?)"

Several things wrong with this one. The first is obviously the "wishing" part, which was covered above. The second is the notion that my argument somehow shows that "we know that we cannot know" and that this is an absolute contradiction.

We do not need to beat a dead horse, so we can skip the "Wish" part.

1. My opponent is making a strawman argument in which he completely misinterprets my argument and attacks that misnterpretation instead of my actual argument. I have not stated anywhere that "we know that we cannot know", it is simply something that my opponent fantasized and decided to pretend to be true.

2. There is no contradiction about "knowing that we cannot know" because in this debate, there are only a few issues in which a lack of knowledge interferes with the debate.

The first is my inability to understand why my opponent keeps making the same logical fallacies over and over again.

The second is my opponent's lack of knowledge regarding the morality of Mother Theresa and Hitler. If he wants to list it as a premise, why can he not show us why this premise is correct in a logically valid way?

On a side note, there are many ways you can know that you cannot know. I cannot know what the future brings. Is this a complete contradiction? I cannot know for certain what that other person is thinking unless he tells me. Is this an absolute contradiction? No, my opponent is just making up invalid arguments from strange tangents.

FIFTH: "So, IF we believe that Mother Theresa's morality is higher than Hitler's then in WHAT sense is it higher UNLESS there is a universal standard for it to be closer or further away from? IF her morality is subjectively above his then it must be closer to the ideal OBJECTIVE morality."

My opponent's argument here is that subjective morality necessitates objective morality. In essence, I am making such a good case for subjective morality that he is trying to blur the lines between subjective and objective in order to earn votes off my my own work.

Let us examine his last statement as a syllogism:

1. MT's morality > AH's morality.
2. We can only say this with a standard.
3. Therefore, a universal standard exists.

This is a non sequitor fallacy that bears semblance to the fallacy of the undistributed middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)

Point #3 does not follow from point #2. Point #1 adequately shows that a standard must exist, but how does my opponent leap from "standard" to "universal standard"? Through a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no way that my opponent can justify that every standard is a universal standard. The answer to his question can simply be that a difference exists in his mind between MT's morality and AH's morality, and that many people share this opinion. This satisfies his proof in that there is a collection of individual standards, but it does not show a universal standard. Thus, my opponent's conclusion is unjustified and fallacious.

SIXTH: "Therefore morality MUST be objective."

I don't believe I need to comment too much on this. My opponent has not commented on a single point I have brought up, has not denied the multitude of logical fallacies I have discovered, has not bothered to defend his points, and ignored all of my work in favor of making more logically fallacious points. This last quote is obviously unfounded and unjustified.

My opponent has no valid arguments, I have made plenty of counterpoints and supporting points for my side. The resolution is negated.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
DATCMOTO

Pro

Please note that when broken down, all three of the constituent notions are completely and totally false."

'When broken down'..

THIS sums up my opponent's tactic perfectly: Rather than face the argument head on he simply deconstructs the components and TA DA.. no argument!

This does NOT help his case ONE iota: Because EVEN IF we concede the point that Hitler's actions are as permissible or desirable as Mother Theresa's actions then we MAY NOT CALL IT MORALITY: If nothing is higher or lower than anything else (the rape of a child is not lower than the giving of flowers to a relative) then IN WHAT SENSE is there morality?

SO, arguing that there is no morality because it cannot be shown that one persons actions are better than anothers PROVES that morality (If YOU, unlike Kleptin, agree it exists) MUST be objective.

Again, I simply implore YOU, (reader/voter) to ask yourself honestly, whether we can safely ASSUME some things? That some things are innately KNOWN; and that ONE of the things we can KNOW is that Mother Theresa's actions are infinitely HIGHER than Adolf Hitlers.
IF you disagree with this statement I have already lost you and you MUST vote for Kleptin.
IF you agree with this statement then I ask you: In which sense can something be above something else UNLESS there is an objective standard for it to be either closer to or further away from?

REMEMBER: We can only deconstruct reality SO far before we have NOTHING left: not even words or letters or sounds etc..
We have to KNOW that we can KNOW some things: Or we have to swallow the ridiculous post-modern mantra that 'we cannot know and there is no ultimate truth'.. BUT we must take THIS statement as true!

It may be too late for Kleptin.. but you?
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now conclude this debate. Following along with the theme of last round, I will stray from a categorized response to suit the fact that my opponent has opted to mention scattered points instead of responding to each one of my own.

FIRST: My opponent suggests that because I "broke his argument down", it turns a valid argument into an invalid one.

This is in reference to the following invalid argument that my opponent made:

"Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's?"

My breakdown:
1. Mother Theresa's morality is above Adolf Hitler's
2. Kleptin's proposition entails that we do not KNOW this truth
3. The Audience has a choice whether or not to exist in the reality that #2 describes.

And the logical fallacies:
For #1, Begging the Question

For #2, Strawman

For #3, Argumentum Ad Populum

My breakdiwn did nothing to alter the truth value of my opponent's argument, it's just that my opponent's argument was flawed to begin with, and my opponent opted to make false accusations instead of conceding his flaws. The fact that my opponent has not shown *how* he believes I have made his argument false by breaking it down shows that he is only using this as a distraction from the failure of his argument.

SECOND: "This does NOT help his case ONE iota: Because EVEN IF we concede the point that Hitler's actions are as permissible or desirable as Mother Theresa's actions then we MAY NOT CALL IT MORALITY"

This is a repetition of my opponent's previous flawed argument. In essence, my opponent is arguing that morality only exists the way *he* dictates it. My opponent continues to beg the question, assuming that there is an objective morality and that any deviation is then incorrect. However, I will address his concerns as best I can.

My opponent is trying to say that subjective morality is not morality at all. On the contrary, everything that makes objective morality valid, also makes subjective morality valid. It doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective, since they would always involve a set of beliefs that guide actions. Whether or not they are objectively right has absolutely no bearing on how it impacts society. Subjective morality is regulated, so there would be no moral anarchy or chaos. It is just that my opponent does not understand morality as a mechanism, only "knows" in his gut that something is either right or wrong. This is not enough, because if we answer the question *why* something is right or wrong, we come up with subjective morality.

THIRD: "If nothing is higher or lower than anything else (the rape of a child is not lower than the giving of flowers to a relative) then IN WHAT SENSE is there morality?

SO, arguing that there is no morality because it cannot be shown that one persons actions are better than anothers PROVES that morality (If YOU, unlike Kleptin, agree it exists) MUST be objective."

My argument is making more appeals to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org...) instead of making valid arguments. As I have said very early on in my introduction, the logical nature of an argument can seem valid if we appeal to the superficial common sense. Of course my opponent wishes to word his invalid arguments in ways that appeal to the audience's emotions, but under even a small amount of scrutiny, we can see that my opponent is simply being misleading.

The question my opponent poses is this: If there is no moral difference between the rape of a child and the giving of flowers, how can we say morality exists?

The answer is that my opponent is making yet another strawman fallacy. I never said that there was no moral difference, nor did I say that any two acts are always equal in moral validity. I simply said that there was no OBJECTIVE scale. Subjective morality will draw clear lines in the sand, but they will vary from culture to culture. Hindus revere cows as sacred. Americans are known for their hamburgers. Both groups have clear distinctions on the morality of eating beef, but differ in that belief.

Thus, I as an American can judge that anyone eating beef is performing a morally valid act, and that the act of eating meat is more justifiably moral than crossing the street against the light, for example. However, an observant Hindu would judge that eating beef is immoral and would judge the act of eating meat to be less moral than crossing the street against the light.

My opponent argues that since we can tell the difference and pass judgment, objective morality must exist. However, he forgets that different people pass judgement differently, making this evidence for SUBJECTIVE morality.

FOURTH: "Again, I simply implore YOU, (reader/voter) to ask yourself honestly, whether we can safely ASSUME some things? That some things are innately KNOWN; and that ONE of the things we can KNOW is that Mother Theresa's actions are infinitely HIGHER than Adolf Hitlers. IF you disagree with this statement I have already lost you and you MUST vote for Kleptin. IF you agree with this statement then I ask you: In which sense can something be above something else UNLESS there is an objective standard for it to be either closer to or further away from?"

Again, another appeal to the "common sense". As I have stated in my introduction, there is a difference between something looking superficially correct and what is truly correct. My opponent knows that his argument is based on nothing but gut feelings, hunches, and personal opinion, mixed in with bad logic. This is why he is so adamant about having the audience ignore my critique in favor of having wool pulled over their eyes and blindly trusting in ignorant "common sense".

FIFTH: "REMEMBER: We can only deconstruct reality SO far before we have NOTHING left: not even words or letters or sounds etc..
We have to KNOW that we can KNOW some things: Or we have to swallow the ridiculous post-modern mantra that 'we cannot know and there is no ultimate truth'.. BUT we must take THIS statement as true!

It may be too late for Kleptin.. but you?"

Nothing but fluff. Since when was reality deconstructed? This is obviously in reference to my "breaking down" his argument. A discussion on the fallacies of my opponent's argument has now been twisted to a discussion on reality and epistemology? Forget my opponent's appeals to common sense. Let me perform this one fallacy and you the audience, whether or not you see any rhyme or reason to my opponent's ridiculous arguments.

I believe I have done more than enough to show just how ridiculous and logically flawed my opponent's arguments have been. My opponent has not addressed the near dozen logical fallacies he has committed in attempting to string together his argument. It is flawed, nonsensical, unjustified, unsupported, and amidst all the valid critiques I had of his argument, my opponent responded to one of them, and in a roundabout way leading to him conceding the point.

In short, my opponent wasted three rounds saying too much and absolutely nothing, at the same time. Unlike my opponent, I will not ask you to vote on ignorance and gut feeling, but rather on logic and evidence. This is why I urge a CON vote.

Thank you to my opponent and the audience.
Debate Round No. 3
85 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
I guess you are insinuating that I'm somehow afraid to challenge you?
Coming from someone who no longer acknowledges my existence on the forums that really is absurd.
Your tactic of pretending to be so far above me (just as Dawkins and Maher et al practice) intellectually etc is JUST that; a tactic NOT a truth.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
(Top of screen)
(Debates)
(Start a New Debate)
(Challenge Kleptin)
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
I guess you are insinuating that I'm somehow afraid to challenge you?
Coming from someone who no longer acknowledges my existence on the forums that really is absurd.
Your tactic of pretending to be so far above me (just as Dawkins and Maher et al practice) intellectually etc is JUST that; a tactic NOT a truth.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
(Top of screen)
(Debates)
(Start a New Debate)
(Challenge Kleptin)
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
No, it's your job to evade REAL discussion with me to avoid further embarrassment.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
It's no use. We lock up the clinically insane because they are convinced that they are the only ones who are rational and that everyone else is irrational.

It is the same situation. The troll thinks that he has found some spectacular argument for his point when in reality, anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in his logic. Except in this case, he isn't clinically insane. Just ignorant.

Thankfully, it is not my duty as his opponent to spoon-feed him basic principles that anyone with a year or two of schooling could grasp. Let him wallow in his own delusions. I've already proven my point that the troll doesn't have the intellectual capacity to defend his statements. It's only an added bonus that I have proven he cannot even understand them.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
That's the point, DARCMO. Your burden was to prove why Hitler's morality was worse accourding to some objective standard. The rhetorical question you just asked is what the Con's been saying this whole time, and your only response is basically because we wouldn't want it to be that way. But that doesn't prove anything.

What you would need to do would be to prove a certain type of moral prerequisite (like treating humans as ends) that's neccessary for any coherant form of morality due to some warrant that makes the leap from descriptive to normative (For example, no one can expect to be treated morally if they don't treat others as ends.)
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
I've YET to hear the SEMBLANCE of an argument for HOW one standard of morality is above another without an objective, universal standard to be closer to/further away from:
Can ANYONE understand the simple concept that; Hitler and his inner circle believed THEMSELVES to be VASTLY MORALLY SUPERIOR to the rest of humanity.. WHAT makes them wrong and 'us' right? or 'righter'?
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
The Conservative base is done with compromising with liberalism. Conservatives are now focused on keeping what is left of capitalism in this country and electing people who will observe and defend the Constitution. Liberalism is about destroying capitalism and rewriting the constitution to further liberalism. Liberalism has only just started to move further and further to the left, they have a long way to go before they get to where they want this country to be. Bi-partisanship is a dinosaur who has long since died. Any Republican that would compromise any further only does so to save their political careers, not because they think it is good for the country. Just because someone is a Republican does not mean they are conservative. Arlin Spector is a prime example, he turn coated the very minute he thought his career was in jeopardy. In 2010 you will see this action take place by dozens of Democrats whose only focus is their political career.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
While the "letter" is a bit amusing, the reality of such a split is that it would not fix the divide. All nations through all of history are split along a similar divide. Each of the new nations would inevitably split along similar lines.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by numbany 7 years ago
numbany
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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 Artifice 7 years ago
Artifice
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
DATCMOTOKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06