The Instigator
Unitomic
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Morality is Objectively and Analytically the Same regardless of Culture and Era.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Unitomic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,312 times Debate No: 65903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Unitomic

Con

Debate: The debate is over whether morality is objectively the same regardless of the Culture, or the Era, and that this can anylatically proven.

Rules: The rules of the Debate are:
1: No Semantics
2: Sources much be online and open to general viewership
3: You must explain why something is fallicious in order to call it a fallacy.


First round is for acceptance, however Pro may choose to issue his initial argument.
Philocat

Pro

Looking forward to a good debate! I agree with your terms.
Debate Round No. 1
Unitomic

Con

Firstly I would like to thank my Opponent for accepting the Debate.

Before I begin, I feel I should give the definitions we shall use.

Morality: Principles which concern the distinction between right and wrong.
Subjectivity: Based on, or influenced by, the the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions of the person or group of people in question.
Objectivity: Based on factors outside of the personal feelings, tastes, or opinions of the person or group of people in question; being absolute regardless of whom is involved.
Analytical: The capacity of a subject to be proven through the use of reason and logic.

I need also to point out that, given the nature of our argument, sources may not be common in all cases. As per Definitions, Subjective Morality doesn't mean there is no morality, it simply means that the morality we have is dependent on ourselves in our culture.


Now that the definitions have been provided, let's start.

Case I: The Lack of Objective Source
Firstly, we have the issue of what is required for morality to be Objective. That is a source. If Morality were Objective, it would have to come from a source other then ourselves. This source could be a higher power, or some hidden detail in our own beings. I would deal with those seperately.

Higher Power: {This is not an argument against a Higher Power.} The problem with a Higher Power Argument is the extraordinary number of different beliefs for what this higher power(s) is(are). No particular belief in a higher power (minus the possibility of the belief of a small isolated tribe here or there, but even that's unlikely) is older then the year 2,600 BC at best {1}. The Egyptians have had worship at 4,000 BC {2}. Some believe that the oldest religions date back 70,000 Years ago at least {3}. This serves to show that the oldest religions are no longer practiced, and no religion today was practiced back then (overall the oldest organized Religions have been aroun dfor only a fraction of our existance). What this means is that no current diety being worshipped can be treated as an objective source since that diety wasn't worshipped in the most ancient times in Human History, and an Objective Source, if objective regardless of Era, must have been there to provide Objectivity in all points in time. No one can say also that each religion is simply a continuation of the priors morality, for reasons I shall answer in Case II

1] http://books.google.com...
2] http://www.ancient.eu...
3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

A Hidden Detail in our own Beings: The major problem with this is that fact that if the source of Objective Morality were in ourselves, we would have no issue with our beliefs (worldwide regardless of era) being the same, and we wouldn't have such extensive discussions on what is right, since the answer would already be harddrived into our beings. Of equal issue with this is that we actually tend to change our own moral code over time. Few people reading this can say they believe exactly the same moral views that they believed as a teenager, and few of us would dare to say we will hold the exact same moral code in 40 years that we hold today (and if you consider it, and find that my statements here are true for you, then you are the only source I need to prove that to you). The very fact that so many people have such different views, and hold them with such conviction, serves to show us that we do not by our very nature have an objective source for morality in our beings. This will be elaborated upon in Cases II.

Case II: The Difference in Morality Throughout History And Cultures
A major issue with those who support a objective view to Morality is the overwhelming difference in Morality throughout History. In ancient times, it was considered largely acceptable to force others to fight to the death for others pleasures, and the fact is, it was considered completely acceptable (even if it wasn't enjoyed by the participants) {4}. Today, we can't even decide is a Rapist and Murderer should be executed {5}. Once it was considered considered acceptable to be Homosexual {6}, then suddenly it found itself to be unacceptable for a period of over a millenium {7}. Today, it is yet again acceptable {8}. Before Pro can claim that the return to acceptability simply showed the it to be a Aberation from the norms (itself showing that Morality isn't solidly Objective), the problem is the extreme length. Had it been only a decade or so, we may have been justified in calling it an anomaly, but at roughly a thousand and a half years, it is simply too large to consider a minor abnormality. That's an entire Era. There are many other examples of the incredable differences in morality between back then and now (including pedophilia {9}), and this shows us that Morality is Subjective. Had Morality been Objective, we would see the Morality from the beginning being correct. But since few today share the same moral code with those from the first civilizations, we can conclude that either our Morality is wrong, or Morality has changed, which is the greatest sign of Subjectivity in Morality. One could also say that Morality evolves, but even if this didn't imply the lack of Objectivity, it would be haunted by the often times back and forth nature of certian details in morality, but even worse is the implication of future generations. Simply put, only a fool would believe those who will come after us shall share our same morality. Can we objectively claim our morality (A joke of a concept giving that we can't even decide what's right and what is wrong in our own societies)
to be superior to their morality? Or perhaps we should remember that they will have gotten to their morality through deciding our morality is itself flawed. Certainly we aren't somehow better then them.
The fact is our Morality is substantially different from the past, and as determined in Case I, if Morality were Objective, then our exact morality would have been seen in substantial numbers in the past, or the exact Morality of the past would still be found in substantial numbers today. Ultimately the extreme difference of Morality, not only in the past, but likely in the future, calls into question the idea of a Morality that is objectively the same regardless of Era or Culture.

4] http://www.historytoday.com...
5] http://www.gallup.com...
6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
8] http://www.gallup.com...
9] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Closing Statement: The Inability to Find Objectivity in Morality.
The simple fact is that Morality has simply had too many different forms throughout the ages. Our morality is simply too different from morality in the past, and too different from morality across the world today (I would hope I need not source some of the differences). What this shows is that (as I've said), Morality isn't solid, it changes over time. We would have to be pretensious to assume that we are Objectively Right, above all others, not just in our time but in others, when our own Morality won't be the same in the future. And if there is an objective morality that we aren't aware of (likely we all would like to think it's ours, though that's impossible due to our own habit of changing our views over time), then how could we possibly find it? Unless we are given absolute proof of an Analytically Objective Morality, we cannot declare ourselves to be objectively right in relation to others.

Therefore, I bring forward that Morality is in fact Subjective to our Culture, Era, and Ourselves.

10] https://philosophynow.org... (Additional Source I wanted to include, but couldn't find the right opening for)

==Unitomic==
Philocat

Pro

First I will state my argument, then I will respond to my opponent's arguments.

Self-evident truths

People make moral evaluations about phenomena all the time, usually based upon justification by appealing to a more basic moral evaluation. For example, one may say 'The death penalty is morally wrong' and they will justify it by appealing to the more basic moral evaluation of 'Killing is morally wrong'. If asked to justify that killing is morally wrong, they will have to appeal to a more basic moral evaluation and so on.
However, this cannot go back to infinity; there must be a single moral evaluation that is intrinsic; it requires no justification. We may not know exactly what this is, but logic proves that there must be one.
If this fundamental morality is intrinsic in its moral worth, it cannot be contingent on cultural or individual definitions. Thus morality is not subjective.

Disproving Subjectivism

My next argument takes the form:

P1: Morality can either be subjective or objective
P2: Morality cannot be subjective
C: Morality is objective.

Premise 1 is fairly axiomatic, if you do dispute it then I challenge you to find a concept that is neither objective or subjective.

Premise 2 is the most notorious form of contention. I assert that morality cannot be subjective because all attempts to ascribe subjectivity to morality lead to absurdities, and thus morality cannot be subjective. Let me explain my reasoning:
If morality is to be subjective, one of the two statements must be made:

"X is good = I personally want X" (subjectivism)
or
"X is good = X is approved of by society" (relativism)

The first statement (subjectivism) cannot be correct, because it would mean that the 'whatever I personally want is necessarily good'. This is false for two reasons. First, it means that one can never act immorally so long as they do what they want. Secondly, it leads to absurdities. For example, it would be a good act for me to torture and rape children if I so much as wanted to do so.
The reason many people believe in subjectivism is that most people intuitively want to do good, but correlation does not imply causation. Note that I am not saying that what people want is not good, I am saying that what people want is not necessarily good.

The second statement (relativism) also cannot be correct, because it would mean that 'whatever is socially approved is necessarily good'. Like subjectivism, this is false for two reasons. First, it means that it is impossible to disagree with your society. Advocates of intrinsic, objective goods such as Nelson Mandela would have been morally wrong to stand up against apartheid, because apartheid was socially approved. Secondly, it also leads to absurdities. As another example, violent anti-semitism in Nazi Germany would be a good thing because it was socially approved (1), if we accept relativism. It is an inadequate perception of morality that it could be determined by a group of like-minded individuals, no matter how evil, coming together to form a society. Therefore morality cannot be defined as what is socially approved, despite the fact that they generally happen to agree on most things.

As both relativism and subjectivism; the two principle variants of the subjective morality world-view, have been shown to be inadequate in the above text, morality is not subjective. Thus my second premise is verified.

With my two premises verified, the conclusion can be analytically reached that morality is objective.

Responses to Con's arguments

Con starts off by making the assumption that "If Morality were Objective, it would have to come from a source other then ourselves". This is not necessarily true.
His premise is that objective concepts require a source of their objectivity, yet this is false. For example, science and logic are objective concepts, yet we do not see a need for a source for them.
To summarise, objective concepts can exist without a source, so objective morality does not require a source and so can exist irrespective of a higher power.

"Of equal issue with this is that we actually tend to change our own moral code over time."

This is not to say that morality is subjective, on the contrary; when people change their moral codes they speak of their past beliefs as being 'incorrect' which implies an objective morality. If morality was subjective then people would refer to their previous moral attitudes as correct at the time. For example, reformed racists speak of their previous racist attitudes as incorrect, instead of accepting that their views were right at the time simply by virtue of personal belief.
Furthermore, people change their scientific theories over time; yet it is absurd to conclude that science is subjective.
In short, our attitudes towards changing morality heavily imply that morality is objective.

My opponent's argument takes on the general form:

P1: What was acceptable in the past is different to what is acceptable now
P2: We would be unjustified to claim that our exact present view of what is acceptable is correct
C: Morality is subjective

However, this begs the question. The argument aims to prove that morality is subjective, but such a view entails that morality is defined as what is considered acceptable. However, this conclusion is assumed in premise 1 because this premise assumes that morality = what is considered acceptable.
In other words, my opponent has used the assumption that morality is equivalent to what is acceptable to argue that morality is subjective; a conclusion that is used to prove the aforementioned assumption. It is a circular argument.

As a side point, the second premise plays upon a misconception in my argument. When I argue that morality is objective I am not saying that our present view of morality is objectively correct. Objective morality does exist, but our current society has not discovered it in its entirety, and nor would I say that society ever will. However this does not change whether morality is objective or not.

(1) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Unitomic

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the responce. I shall now offer my Rebuttals. As he will not have the chance to counter any new cases, I shall only rebute.

Counter-Argument I: Self-Evident Truths
Pro has attempted to convince us that because all morals derived from a singular intrinsic moral. The problem with this moral (which Pro has failed to detail, so we have to conclude is simply "Do what's right") is incredably vague. Pro has given us a single rule and told us that there is an entire objective legal system built into it. The reality of the situation though is that we cannot take a single moral (or set of singular morals), and expect everyone to come up with the same morality. Unless it is detailed thoroughly and the same regardless of region and age, we are going to individually develope our own views on morality, and therefore in that way, it is purely Subjective to our personal beliefs, and "contigent on cultural and individual definitions". All that a single (or small set of) morals does here is help to cement everyones subjective views as equally right. It also doesn't help Pros case that his example overly simplifies morality. "Is it right to kill" is over simplification of an incredably complicated moral matter which in the real world includes many variables, each of which further "gray" the matter, so that many different answers can be considered right.

Counter-Argument II: Disproving Subjectivism
For his second argument, Pro has tried to tell us what Subjectivism is. He claims Subjectivism means "I want A = A is good". That isn't subjectivism. Subjectivism is:

I: A
ny of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community. {1}
II: The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states. {2}

Essentially subjectivitiy is the result of our personal experiences and envirement, not something as simple as "I want it". Pro's attempts to redefine Subjectiveness won't work here. Pro's second assertian, about the flaws of relativism (aside from him using his own opinions as proof, whereas others may view society in fact ot be the prime determiner of morality), is itself flawed in that it treats it as an either/or situation. It is not simple either Personal Subjectivism or Social Dominence. Rather it is a complicated mixture of Personal Subjectiveness and and Social Relativism (which itself is the general consenses of each persons individual subjectivity, not some domineering force that Pro makes it sound like"), the exact combination of which is for personal determination (Again, proof of Subjectivity).

1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Responce to Counter-Arguments
1: "His premise is that objective concepts require a source of their objectivity, yet this is false. For example, science and logic are objective concepts, yet we do not see a need for a source for them." The problem with Pro's counter here is we do in fact require objective sources for science and logic. We do not simply say that fire is hot because we think it might be. We say fire is hot because we have an objective source (Fire, and the heat which comes off it). Science and Logic work entirely by observing Objective objects, and basing our assumptions off those. The idea that our science is based off anything else is absurd. How else do we practice science without source material? Objective Concepts require an Objective Source, otherwise they are sourceless conjecture. Pro's argument also comes in conflict with his prior argument that all morality is derived from objective singular morals. I will not take time to go into detail on how Pro has overwelmingly simplified my argument without giving real rebuttal to the support I gave for that argument.

2: Pro has yet again attempted to provide an ill-presented comparison between Philosophy and Science, which are inherently two very different fields. But putting that aside, the problem with Pro's statements here is that he misses the point of the argument entirely. The point of that particular argument is that we cannot trust ourselves to find this "Objective" morality, therefore making it effectively subjective.

3: Yet again, an incredably oversimplification of my arguments (a dubious recreation at best). Pro has claimed that I have "begged the question", but in reality he has simply left out all the support. Begging the Question is claiming A is right because A. That is not what I have done. I have argues A is right because B+C+D. Clearly B+C+D will equal A if my arguments are correct, that is entirely axiomatic. What he did was solve the mathmatical equation, and then argued it was wrong because it equalled exactly what I said it would. Pro has completely refused to answer the arguments I gave, and has tried to alter it in a way so has to make it appear fallacious.

4: Pro has attempted to play semantics here (against the rules of the debate) by attempting to alter the definition of "Morality". Pro has just told us Morality is not "what is considered acceptable", but that is exactly what morality is.

I:
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. {3}
II: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior {4}
III: Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong) {5}

As we can see, morality is exactly what is considered good and bad. Adding to this, Pro has claimed these definitions wrong, without providing any new definition of his own. Again right before moving on to the side point, he takes my arguments ( A = B+C+D ), and tries to simplify them into A = A by compressing B+C+D into A (which it will ultimately equal if I'm right), and tries to make us believe I have performed a fallacy by refusing to point out that I have in fact given the supports ( B C and D) to A, rather then moving straight to A.

5: If our present culture as not discovered the Objective truth, (even worse saying that we likely never will), then we must assume that Morality is Effectively Subjective, in the same way science and government view God in a secular way. In some ways, one may argue, Pro is using the Teapot in Space argument here, claiming that I cannot argue against something because we haven't come to find it yet. {6}

3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
6] http://rationalwiki.org...


==Unitomic==

Philocat

Pro

In spirit of the debate, I will also only refute Con"s arguments and not create new ones.

Con suggests that my proof of a single intrinsic moral is "incredably vague" and that it is flawed insofar as individuals will develop their own views on morality around it. I don"t deny this, and I suspect that people will come to varying moral conclusions especially on complex moral dilemmas. But this is not to say that morality is subjective; for peoples' moral conclusions are merely interpretations of the objective whole. Returning to my example of mathematics, people often interpret complex mathematics in different ways, but it would be odd to then conclude that mathematics is subjective.
Furthermore, I am not the one testifying for the veracity of "do not kill", I am merely saying that many people use this imperative to justify their more complex moral opinions (note that I am not saying that these are correct) such as "abortion is wrong".
I agree that considering simple categorical imperatives such as "do not kill" is an oversimplification that requires fine-tuning. However, this does not mean that fine-tuned imperatives are not objective.
To summarise, Con has raised some practical problems with my proof of an objective morality, but has not actually refuted the logic I use to prove that it exists.
Thus my point stands.

Next, Con takes issue with the definition of subjectivism that I postulated. (1)
However, I do not see Con's definition as saying anything intrinsically different to 'I want X'. Perhaps because this seems quite an infantile portrayal of subjectivism, but the "emotional reaction of the individual" is merely a sophisticated way of saying that morality is what the individual feels they want to do. For example, if I have an emotional reaction that extramarital sex is wrong then this is just another way of saying that I want to have the moral right to have extramarital sex.
Even in your changed definition, subjectivism still fails because it would mean that whatever I have a positive emotional reaction to is necessarily good. This is false. For example, I may strongly and emotionally believe that the segregation of black people is good; but this does not make it so by virtue of my emotional reaction.
Consequently, even if Con does insist on modifying my definition, it does not escape the fact that subjectivism leads to absurdities.
Con then goes on to make the point that morality is not either relativism or subjectivism, but a mixture of both. Yet I struggle to see why this point is any more than idle musing, my opponent has not bothered to actually ethically explain why we should mix the two.
Even if we do combine them, why should the combination of two flawed ethical theories make a good theory? Put analogously, an ugly blazer and an ugly shirt do not combine to make an attractive suit.
Finally, he states:
"the exact combination of which is for personal determination (Again, proof of Subjectivity)."
Yet again, my opponent succumbs to little more than speculation about what people ought to do, without actually explaining why this should be so. Stating a premise without an argument or evidence to support it does not provide valid proof of the conclusion (that subjectivity is correct). Just because people may choose to determine the combination between relativism and subjectivism does not make them right to do so.

My opponent then responds to my counter-arguments, starting with my contention of the premise that objectivity requires a source.
In regards to science, its source is not the objectivity of physical existence, although even if it was I would then postulate that the objectivity of physical existence has no source. The reason why physical existence is not the source of science's objectivity is that the scientific method itself is not sourced upon physical objects, it merely utilises them to seek understanding. The actual scientific method (which is the essence of what science is) is objective but not sourced on physical existence; it is an epistemological framework that establishes the veracity of empirical evidence. Therefore empirical evidence cannot be used as the source of the scientific method if it has not yet been proved veridical BY the scientific method.

Con then disputes my assertion that he begged the question in his argument.
To recap, my opponent"s argument was roughly this (I may be wrong in my interpretation, but this is the best attempt at putting it in logical format):

A: Morality has changed over the course of history because we have historical evidence that what was culturally acceptable in the past is not culturally acceptable now (and vice-versa).
B: If something changes over time then it is subjective
C: Morality is subjective (contingent on cultural acceptability).

The reason that this is begging the question is that the C (the conclusion that morality is effectively what is culturally acceptable) is subtly assumed in A. I am not saying that A+B = C because that would be a valid argument, but I am saying that A=C (using an assumption of the conclusion as a single premise) is begging the question.
Therefore my assertion that Con's argument is fallacious stands.
Con claims that I have completely refused to answer his arguments, but if an argument is proved fallacious then it is rendered null and void, I have no need to respond to its actual content. His argument would only hold water if it was agreed the morality = what is culturally acceptable, but my opponent has failed to prove this equation to be correct.

Semantics are forbidden in this debate, although when Con highlights this he is guilty of using semantics.
"Pro has just told us Morality is not "what is considered acceptable", but that is exactly what morality is".
I actually use reasoned argument in round 2 to back up my claim that morality is not "what is considered acceptable" and so it is not semantics. However, Con"s claim that "that is exactly what morality is" is semantic.

In his penultimate attempt at rebuttal, Con resorts to the appeal to dictionary fallacy. In short, Con has used this logic:
- This dictionary definition says X=Y
- Therefore, X=Y
But this takes the dictionary to be an unquestionable authority that it is not.

Finally, my opponent argues that an unlocated objectivity is effectively subjective. However, this is a dubious point, as ignorance of something does not change its fundamental nature. Con has failed to provide adequate logic to say otherwise.
He then accuses me of using the "teapot in space" fallacy, which takes the logical form:
- One cannot prove that X does not exist
- Therefore X exists
However, I do not use this logic because I am not saying that Con cannot argue against objective morality because it cannot be found. In the context of this debate, Con is arguing that subjective morality exists (and therefore cannot be objective) and I am arguing that subjective morality does not exist (and therefore must be objective). I would be guilty of the teapot in space fallacy if I was refuting Con's arguments that objective morality does not exist, but instead I was refuting Con's arguments that subjective morality does exist.

To conclude the debate, I think my opponent has made a remarkable defence of subjective morality, although he has ultimately failed at actually proving that subjective morality exists. This allows my arguments for the existence of objective morality to remain standing.

(1) http://www.harryhiker.com...
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Complete Reason for Voting Decision:

Pro really put in a lot of effort to defend his position, and in a lot of ways he almost won me over. But ultimately Con won this debate because he provided examples to show that human history has a very diverse, very inconsistent relationship with morality. At one time in the world long ago homosexuality was accepted by some cultures. But over the last millenium these same cultures have rejected homosexuality, though now some are beginning to change their view on this topic. Once it was acceptable to have people fight each other to death for the pleasure of others; not this is shunned in most parts of the world. The list of real-life examples is just endless and I think Con won this debate simply by example alone. What I would have enjoyed by either side is some explanation to show how a consensus in morality within a culture or between cultures is reached; however, I think the ultimate explanation would still support Con's position.

Ultimately the moral views, and even the laws we adopt, reflect what want and what we value as a community, though I think as time progresses our shared desire to live and live comfortably will force us to adopt a unified set of international morals and laws. As the world gets smaller and as people interact with diverse groups more and more, necessity is forcing us to adopt morals and laws that are more consistent with each other and that still promote a high quality human life.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I'm now voting on this debate. Sorry about my vote arriving so late.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I still have to read through this debate. I don't want to vote on it without reading through the arguments. I'll cast my vote this Friday.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I'll try to cast my vote on this debate by tomorrow night.
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
When you have several dictionaries saying X=y then yes, X=Y. Attempting to say otherwise is playing semantics. Ergo, breaking the rules
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
In what way?
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Con reminds me of Donald.Keller
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
If his vote is removed, I would suggest altering your conduct and spelling vote so as not to appear as if you yourself are vote-bombing
Posted by Unitomic 2 years ago
Unitomic
To point out a few matters.

Neither Me nor Philo were rude, and we maintained a civil discussion. And neither of us can be attacked for grammar (which should never be a factor in the debate).

Also, you said that Pro should have dealt with my specific arguments, but then you still give him Arguments. That's not a proper vote. And you can't say that he had no position to attack my specific arguments due to the number of rounds for several reasons.

1: The rounds have 10,000 word limits, he could have easily fit in rebuttals for specific arguments and still made his general arguments.
2: I had enough room to do specifics, so round numbers clearly aren't a factor.
3: He could have had three rounds. I offered him to use the first round to give his opening argument if he wanted first argument. He chose to give me first argument.

Lastly, Spelling should never be a factor. He isn't more right because he got lucky on the spelling.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
@YYW Report him to Airmax.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
UnitomicPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really put in a lot of effort to defend his position, and in a lot of ways he almost won me over. But ultimately Con won this debate because he provided examples to show that human history has a very diverse, very inconsistent relationship with morality. At one time in the world long ago homosexuality was accepted by some cultures. But over the last millenium these same cultures have rejected homosexuality, though now some are beginning to change their view on this topic. Once it was acceptable to have people fight each other to death for the pleasure of others; not this is shunned in most parts of the world. The list of real-life examples is just endless and I think Con won this debate simply by example alone. What I would have enjoyed by either side is some explanation to show how a consensus in morality within a culture or between cultures is reached; however, I think the ultimate explanation would still support Con's position.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
UnitomicPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The key here, in this resolution, is the words "regardless of Culture and Era." Con managed to show that the human determination of what is and is not moral changed over time, thereby showing that subjectivity has been present. Pro's main response to this is that that doesn't prove that there isn't an objective morality out there somewhere, but this is trying to shift the burden of proof off of himself. It's necessary to explain why morality has shifted with time and yet that there has been an objective morality that whole time. I don't think Pro managed to do that here, and as such, Con gets my vote.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
UnitomicPhilocatTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate boils down to one single thing: Pro was not able to properly dispute that the accepted morals in civilization have changed from past times to today. Pro said in R3, "...he has ultimately failed at actually proving that subjective morality exists. This allows my arguments for the existence of objective morality to remain standing." Pro was completely incorrect here, as Con pointed out that the morals of the peoples on Earth have changed since the beginning of civilization, due to certain peoples' preferences. Con did not properly rebut this point. ---"Our morality is simply too different from morality in the past, and too different from morality across the world today" - Con
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
UnitomicPhilocatTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Morality changes over time, which was basically CON's strongest point, therefore it can't be objective. The point about morality being "analytically the same" didn't make a lot of sense on PRO's part, either. What counts for the right thing to do, and how we decide what that thing is, in any given situation, varies over time (In CON's words: The simple fact is that Morality has simply had too many different forms throughout the ages.). That seems to stand in contradiction with PRO's point. CON clearly wins here. Sources to CON because his were considerably more credible. I'm also going to counter Jzyehoshua's conduct and sp/g points because they were unjustifiably awarded.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
UnitomicPhilocatTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made extremely strong arguments that subjectivism and relativism necessarily lead to absurdities. Con clearly resorted in his final argument to heavy use of adjectives to attack Pro (e.g. "overly simplifies", "misses the point of the argument entirely", "dubious recreation", "tried to alter it", "play semantics", etc.). A large portion of Con's writing in the final round was devoted just to the portrayal of Pro. Pro had much better spelling and grammar but Con gets credit for sourcing. Con needs to do a lot of work to improve their spelling and grammar as there were a LOT of mistakes. While I would've liked to see Pro address Con's specific arguments I can see why Pro focused on the general topic instead of specifics given the limited number of rounds available for debate, two.