The Instigator
Chaosism
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Objective Morality Does Not Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Chaosism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,092 times Debate No: 76353
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Chaosism

Pro

If anyone is willing to accept this debate, I will simply be arguing that morality is not an objective concept.

Definitions [1]

Objective : (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Morality : principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

If you intend to argue from a theological standpoint, then please present a definition for God in your opening round.

Structure

Con may elect to use Round #1 for acceptance only or to present arguments. If the latter is chosen, then Con must waive the final round in order to maintain an equal number of opportunities to argue. The rest of the debate shall not follow any specific structure.

[1] Oxford Dictionaries - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
Benshapiro

Con

Thanks pro. I'll use this round for acceptance. I'm assuming that you're accepting the BoP since you're the one making the claim and haven't specified BoP in the first round. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Chaosism

Pro

Yep - I was going to add that in but I didn't do it fast enough. That question probably should have been asked in Comments first, though.

Moral Biology

I shall open by stating that many organisms have evolved as social organisms. Through the process of evolution (via natural selection and mate selection), these organisms (as a population) developed the sense of empathy that we are all so innately familiar with [1]. Modern neuroscience explains that this phenomenon is a process or function of the brain [2]. Empathy is simply the ability to vicariously experience and understand the emotions of another being, and emotions themselves are a result of the processes of the brain [3].

However, empathy and morality are not a universal constant. For example, consider the Black Widow Spider's tendency to devour its mate [4], which is an evolutionary trait [5]. To our standards, cannibalism is almost unanimously viewed as highly immoral and repulsive and as such, we almost unanimously regard this as a horrifyingly immoral act. If the spider shared this same view (well, I'm sure the male does), it would not be so frequently performing this act. The spider is driven by biological and psychological factors, and clearly doesn't see this action as "wrong" or "bad". This demonstrates that the judgment of morality lies in the beholder.

It is quite easy for us to acknowledge that there are actions that are universally right and wrong, but that is because we are all the same species (human) and as such, have very similarly developed brains, which is the very source of this judgment. To continue this point, empathy isn't universally the same within even our own species. If the act of killing is universally "bad", why can we so easily kill a fly or mosquito but shudder at the thought of killing a puppy? The basis of this judgment is a result of the feeling that we get as a result of our evolved, socially-based cognitive development.

The above indicates that the source of our morality lies within ourselves and in our feelings. Specifically, within our psychology and emotions and as such, is subjective.

Moral Value

Like other comparative descriptive words, morality depends on a value which is then compared to other possibilities. A similar descriptive word would be "large". If something is assigned the label of "large", it is based completely on its size relative to other objects. Compared to a pebble, a boulder may be large but then, if compared to a planet, it is not. A single object in existence cannot be described as either large or small because there is nothing to compare it to. This is, of course, unless one believes in objective largeness.

Morality is similar to this because it can clearly be recognized as some actions hold a greater degree of wrongness than others. An observe attaches a value to the subject (based on empathy and emotion) which represents a moral judgment, and that judgment is only applicable to that particular observer. Certainly, different observers can associate the same general value with a given subject, but each individual's perspective is their own.

[1] http://greatergood.berkeley.edu......
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com......
[3] http://www.humanillnesses.com......
[4] http://www.livescience.com......
[5] http://www.livescience.com...... (essentially. same source as above)
Benshapiro

Con

Thanks Pro. I must cast enough doubt on Pro's case to negate it or provide a counter-plan than provides a better alternative. Either will do.


Defining objective morality


Objective + morality = Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior that are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

" I will simply be arguing that morality is not an objective concept." (Pro, Round 1).


Immediately we can see that most of Pro's case is thrown out. We're arguing whether something on a conceptual level is objective or not. Conceptualizing is a higher order cognitive process. Only humans are capable of conceptualizing. Examples anything pre-human are not relevant.

Pro says "It is quite easy for us to acknowledge that there are actions that are universally right and wrong, but that is because we are all the same species (human) and as such, have very similarly developed brains, which is the very source of this judgment." If I'm understanding right, it seems like Pro is supporting objective morality from a purely human perspective.

Pro's Logic in a syllogism

1. If morality is emergent, then morality is relative

2. Morality is emergent

C. Morality is relative (ie not objective)

Now I'll show why this logic is faulty using my own arguments:


1. If mathematics is emergent, then mathematics is relative

2. Mathematics is emergent

C. Mathematics is relative (ie not objective)

Or

1. If the laws of logic are emergent, then the law of logic are relative

2. The laws of logic are emergent

C. The laws of logic are relative (ie not objective)

My premise is affirmed using the exact same logic that Pro uses to reject objective morality. Mathematics and the laws of logic are both objective and conceptual. Just because the concepts of logic and mathematics are conceived using a higher functioning brain doesn't mean that the concepts are relative or non-objective.

Evolution, in principle, can’t tell us whether morality is objective or subjective. Moral principles could be analogous to an organisms ability to see. The light was always there – but the organisms just didn’t have sufficiently developed eyes to see it yet. The light has objective presence but the ability to see it is not.

According to Immanuel Kant, one of the greatest philosphers of the 18th century, said that morality is a "rational enterprise". He believed that morality was objective because it had a foundation in pure, practical reason. Here is his formulation:

  1. Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit". Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim.
  2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle required of yourself.
  3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
  4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
  5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and is sometimes required

According to Kant, morality is rational because it has an objective foundation in pure, practical reasoning.

A black widow eating its mate is not "cannibalism" in the sense that it was a rational choice. Nor is forcible animal copulation "rape". Intent is the very basic foundation of morality. It's the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Animals and bugs that aren't capable of rational decision making act out of instinct. It's not comparable to a moral choice.

The difference between killing a mosquito and puppy is pretty straightforward. A mosquito is potential disease-carrying parasite. It probably has little to no capacity to feel pain. A puppy is an adorable and relatively safe pet. It has the capacity to feel a much larger amount of pain.

Causing unnecessary pain is cruel. It's better to let something be - and live - if it doesn't bother you. These are rational conclusions.

Emotions aren't necessarily subjective. Pain is an emotion. Burn anyone's face and you'll get an objectively painful reaction.


I don't see the problem that varying degrees of moral-ness poses for objective morality. Somebody might find 101 degrees farenheit too hot for the jacuzzi while others finds it to be just fine. The degrees are still 101 no matter what disposition we may have about it. The same is true for differing perspectives on the degree of immorality of something.


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

Debate Round No. 2
Chaosism

Pro

Thank you for engaging in this debate with me. The entirely of my argument will be responding to my opponent's arguments in defense of my own.

Firstly, Con states:
"Immediately we can see that most of Pro's case is thrown out. We're arguing whether something on a conceptual level is objective or not. Conceptualizing is a higher order cognitive process. Only humans are capable of conceptualizing. Examples anything pre-human are not relevant."

Even though moral objectiveness is a concept; it is not required of a being to understand the concept itself in order to be subject to a sense of morality. This would be akin to a bird flying without being aware the aerodynamics behind it. In fact, Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. [1] This demonstrates that morality exists even if it is not grasped as a concept.

Secondly, Con presents a syllogism which does not actually represent my argument, which is represented in the first premise:
"If morality is emergent, then morality is relative"

My initial argument demonstrates why we have the sense of morality that we do, and why it feels so universal and may seem objective [because we have the same basic brain]. I do not argue that evolution is the reason why morality is subjective. Within my argument, I explain how empathy and emotion are the source of morality. To go into it a little deeper, we have "mirror neurons" which are a special class of brain cells that fire not only when an individual performs an action, but also when the individual observes someone else make the same movement [2]. It is because of these mirror neurons that we can witness someone stub their toe and flinch in response. In essence, since the source of morality lies in our emotions, or "feelings", it fully defies the definition of "objective" as presented in Round 1.

Thirdly, Con supplies a quote from one, Immanuel Kant. Within, Kant establishes the example maxim, "I will lie for personal benefit" paired with the act of lying, and then instructs us to imagine a world in which everyone followed this maxim. This is followed by a rational procedure, and as Con states, "According to Kant, morality is rational because it has an objective foundation in pure, practical reasoning."

Although rational processes can determine the best course of action in regards to morality, it still requires the being's feelings and opinions to determine the desired conclusion of the rational process. One opinions and feelings and empathy determine the destination, and rationality can be employed to get us there. One refrains from lying about everything because of fear or dislike of repercussions or punishment, or because he feels that he wouldn't want to be lied to so he won't lie to others, which is a conclusion reached though empathy.

Con continues:
"A black widow eating its mate is not "cannibalism" in the sense that it was a rational choice. Nor is forcible animal copulation "rape". Intent is the very basic foundation of morality. It's the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Animals and bugs that aren't capable of rational decision making act out of instinct. It's not comparable to a moral choice."

An act of cannibalism is "An animal that feeds on flesh of its own species" [3], which is an objective event. Rape is also an objective event, which occurs when one participant is unwilling. These are what they are, regardless of intent. If they were objectively wrong, then these actions would be immoral, even if they are driven by instinct. Even we are slave to our instincts (albeit to a lesser degree) which drive our actions. I know that I could not bring myself to harm someone without necessity because my emotions and empathy prevent me.

Fourthly, Con says:
"The difference between killing a mosquito and puppy is pretty straightforward. A mosquito is potential disease-carrying parasite. It probably has little to no capacity to feel pain. A puppy is an adorable and relatively safe pet. It has the capacity to feel a much larger amount of pain."

If killing is objectively wrong, then it is wrong. Killing the mosquito can be justified, which is founded in personal judgment. The notion that it probably has no capacity for pain is a poor justification; If one could kill a person without them feeling pain, is that justified? The mosquito's life is still terminated.

Now I'll ask, why do we value the life of a puppy over that of a mosquito? It is because our sense of empathy has tuned to canines and similar creatures because of our mutual co-existence through evolution [4]. Heck, our empathy is so overarching that many of us display it with stuffed animals! Now the mosquito, on the other hand, is a threat as you stated. This leads to our aversion to them, which is driven by our feelings and instincts, as well. This further demonstrates the subjectiveness of morality.

Con says:
"Causing unnecessary pain is cruel. It's better to let something be - and live - if it doesn't bother you. These are rational conclusions."
...and...
" Emotions aren't necessarily subjective. Pain is an emotion. Burn anyone's face and you'll get an objectively painful reaction."

The first conclusion is reached through empathy. We dislike pain, so our empathy deters us from causing it in others. Inversely, a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which pertains to a lack of empathy for other people [5], would not find anything wrong with causing such unwarranted pain. While I fully agree with your statement, personally, it is merely opinion.

Regarding the second statement, I would say that emotional states are objective. If someone is angry, then his brain is functioning in a way that pertains to anger (chemical processes) which is similar to the reception of pain. This motivates our actions towards others based on our opinions about these sensations, via empathy. We don't like pain, so we don't wish to inflict it on others (generally).

Finally, regarding Con's final statement: if something is immoral in an objective sense, it would be so even without requiring something to compare it to. For instance, if a cup is made of metal, it is so without comparing it to something else. Saying the cup is large, on the other hand, requires a means of comparison. Morality requires a means of comparison.

Sources
[1] primates.com (content sourced from the NY Times) - http://www.primates.com...
[2] BrainFacts.org - http://www.brainfacts.org...
[3] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] National Geographic - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[5] Psychology Today - https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Benshapiro

Con

I want to thank pro for hosting this debate as well. I'll be concise as possible since I'm typing from my phone and won't have access to a computer for awhile.

There is literally no point in bringing up our evolved sense of empathy (as a product of evolution) if pro doesn't intend on affirming his BoP with it.

His argument is that empathy is the product of evolution. The level of empathy one has determines the immorality of something. The basis of "killing is wrong" is determined by the *feeling* AKA *empathy* that we get as a result of our evolved, socially based cognitive development towards that proposition. Pro says morality lies "within our feelings". Varying levels of empathy amongst different species, such as black widows and humans, explains why morality is subjective but *seemingly* objective to us because human beings share the same levels of empathy (because empathy derives from the brain and we all more or less share the same brains). This explains *why* morality would be relative.

So, at best, pro hasn't proven anything. At worst, pro should've responded to my syllogisms last round and has already dropped them.

Morality is 100% conceptual. "Principles of good and bad behavior" only applies to a thing capable of a higher level of cognition. To say that it isn't required of a being to understand the concept of morality in order to be subject to a sense of morality is contradictory. Rational choice between good and bad behavior is *essential* to a "moral choice" because it establishes *intent*. A tornado that kills 1,000,000 people isn't acting immorally. It's an a-moral consequence of a natural disaster. A male shark that forcibly copulates with a female shark isn't guilty of "rape". Intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. Intent requires a rational and cognitive mind. If conceptual principles of right and wrong are only applicable to rational, higher functioning cognitive beings, then for all intents and purposes this debate is already over. Pro admits that human beings have a universal sense of wrongness for some actions. That means it couldn't plausibly be nihilistic or subjective. The only alternative is affirming objective morality!

Pro says that a beings feelings and opinions are necessary to determine the conclusion of a rational moral process. I agree. But "empathy" is just the ability of oneself to understand another's feelings. It can't tell you *anything* about what we "ought" to do. A torturer can gleefully admit to his victim that "torture really hurts!". Morality, or principles of "good" and "bad" behavior is solely about what we *ought* to do. Consider the absurdity of Pro's position: any animal that forcibly copulates with another animal is objectively "raping" it. A black widow that kills and eats its mate after procreating is objectively a murdering cannibal... This is nonsense. Animals are instinctive - not rational beings. Rationality and intent are necessary for any" moral" choice.

Pro confuses objective morality with moral absolutism. He says that "if killing is wrong [in reference to a mosquito] then it's objectively wrong." He goes on to say that "justified" killing is a subjective personal judgement - and is therefore subjectively immoral. This misses the point.

"Killing is always wrong" is an example of moral absolutism. It's true in all places and at all times - regardless of context.

"Killing without necessary justification is always wrong" is an example of an objective moral. It's true in all places and at all times - but varies depending on context because "necessary justification" determines whether it's wrong or not. Killing in self-defense is not wrong because it's justified. Killing for fun is wrong because it's unjustified. The basis for "justification" lies in rationality. This determination of "justification" doesn't mean that it's subjectively immoral.

Our compassion towards canines isn't because our primordial selves were raised by wolves. It's because they're relatively harmless and cute. We weren't raised by kittens and we get along with them just fine too.



The degree of morality or immorality of something is measured in terms of intent, harm, and values of the thing it's affecting. The standard by which we can measure the immorality of something is on rational grounds.

Note: it's not my job to provide a counter plan. All I must do to win this debate is cast enough doubt on Pro's case to not merit accepting it.
Debate Round No. 3
Chaosism

Pro

I extend my thanks to my opponent for participating in the debate. The following subdivided sections should address all of Con's point from the previous round.

Evolution
I feel that bringing up evolution is relevant to my case in that, it can be made clear why each of us has the moral values that we do, and that it isn't because those actions are intrinsically immoral. Again, Con's syllogism states that I argue that morality is subjective because of evolution which does not reflect my argument, so I need not address it. The point of this is to demonstrate that human perspective and values are not the ultimate perspective and values. They vary widely among different forms of life.

Conceptualization
Let us look more closely at the experiment regarding rhesus monkeys and morality that I briefly mentioned in my previous round. The conclusion of the experiment was that A majority of rhesus monkeys will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expense of electroshock to a conspecific [1]. During the experiment, the monkeys often refrain from pulling a chain to receive food if it caused apparent harm in a fellow monkey. Were the monkeys rationalizing the consequences of their actions, or merely responding to the empathetic feelings produced by their brains due to the association between the action of pulling the chain and the observation of harm to another? I think it can be reasonably doubted that the monkeys did not rationalize. ("Attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate." [2]) This argument is addressed again in the next section.

Intent and Instinct
Actions require and reflect intent. All intentions originate from the urges of a being's mind, whether the actions are rationalized or not. So, even when we humans, as being of a higher cognitive standing, make rationalize an action prior to acting, it stems from our base urges and emotions, and our rationalization is an assessment of that action based on our personal (i.e. subjective) values. If it is foreseen that an intended action will affect another being, then one rationalizes and considers the consequences of the action. The action will proceed, be aborted, or modified according to this assessment. No matter how one come to a verdict, it is based completely on personal values. If the action will bring harm to someone, one's feelings about causing harm to others (i.e. empathy) will affect the decision. Alternatively, the perceived repercussions may deter the action based on how one feels about them. In any case, feelings are involved, which defies the definition of objective.

Since we, ourselves also act without rationalization and can deem those action moral or immoral, it is a bit of a stretch to say that morality is 100% conceptual. For example, a person it driving down the road and at the last second, spots an animal and swerves out of the way without conscious thought. A few moments later, another person see the animal (which is stupidly still in the roadway) and proceeds on course anyway without consciously thinking about it. One could call the first person more moral than the second, because these actions reflect their personal values, even though neither of them rationalized their actions.

Justification
Con highlights that I conflated moral absolutism and objective morality, and then states, "[Moral absolutism is] true in all places and at all times - regardless of context." and then states that "killing without necessary justification is always wrong" is an example of objective morality. Justification, however, is not objective - it's an opinion of an observer.

There exist situations in which an action, such as killing, is not deemed immoral. Such is when a being is acting on pure instinct or acting in self-defense, but all of these actions are exempt from morality because there was no *apparent* alternative action available. The action that occurs, such as killing, occurs objectively but is justified *subjectively* by this means. Justification is certainly influenced by personal feelings and opinions. For instance, to defend oneself in court, one can claim Self-Defense which is the Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances [3,4]. Even though many cases may seem quite obvious, there is no clear-cut, objective means of establishing this justification; it requires an opinionative evaluation of the circumstances. This violates the definition of objective.

In regard to my example with the mosquito, thoughtlessly killing it is a reflection of the lack of value we place on its life, which differs based on personal opinion. There are many people who would deem killing that mosquito immoral, which reflects that it is based on personal feeling and opinions which defies the definition of objective. Con presents a few examples and, of course, the tornado example Con mentions is not an action that is result of intent (ignoring "act of God"), so that one can be ignored.

Another example that Con presented regarded a shark. The male shark is indeed guilty of the objective act of rape, but the intent of the shark is not deemed immoral by justification. We, as a society, recognize this and it can been seen in the insanity defense. However, the former example is more clear-cut and readily agreed upon, but the later requires much assessment and valuation. Both are opinions.

Misc.
Con states:
"Our compassion towards canines isn't because our primordial selves were raised by wolves. It's because they're relatively harmless and cute. We weren't raised by kittens and we get along with them just fine too."

I did not mean that we were raised by wolves but rather that we evolved alongside one another, so there is a connection. Our preference for such animals (like cats) over others (such as snakes) is much stronger due to this. Everyone is different, which reflects personal, subjective values.

Conclusion
Every moral judgment an individual makes is rooted in personal values and opinions, which indicates that morality is purely subjective. The reason that certain actions appear to have an objective moral value is simply because we are similar-minded beings. Objective morality does not exists because moral judgment is always influenced by personal opinions or feelings, which defies the definition of "objective".

Sources
[1] Lectric Law Library - http://www.lectlaw.com...
[2] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] Shouse California Law Group - http://www.shouselaw.com...
[4] Altruistic Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys - http://www.madisonmonkeys.com...
Benshapiro

Con

Benshapiro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
Chaosism
I've increased my understanding since this time. Here are two decent forum thread regarding the issue of morality in which I participated:

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

I feel that I expressed my own stance pretty clearly in them.
Posted by Seagull 7 months ago
Seagull
fascinating!
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
RFD 3/3

Round 4
Here it seemed debaters were arguing between moral ontology and moral epistemology. However, it can be argued that to know if something is one way, there must be epistemic access to determine its probability since objective reasoning is based on evidence.
Con clarifies his position by showing actions can be spontaneous/impulsive and also argues that justification is not objective which was inductively asserted by appealing to the opinions of observers. Since Con forfeited his final round, these contentions went unchallenged and won Pro the debate.
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
RFD 2/3

Round 3
Pro showed that morality need not be 100% conceptualized and the assumption that morality relies on emotions or rather that animals can be void of emotion was unjustified. Thus defending his contention. Pro went on to show that if morality necessarily incorporates one"s feelings then by agreed definition, it is subjective.

There also seemed to be conflation between rationalism and empiricism. Here Con basically states that to feel a sense of morality one must first understand the concept, since it is 100% conceptual. This clearly shows the disagreement between Pro and Con. However, it does not follow that intent/action requires rationality. Given the lack of clarity of the term "rationality," Con seems to neglect animal cognition by stating animals act only on instinct unlike reason, which was another assumption.
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
RFD 1/3

The onus was on Pro to show that objective morality does not exist. Since it imports evidence based reasoning (induction or likelihood), Pro needed to cast sufficient doubt on all of Con"s arguments.

Round 2
Pro argues that morality is developed through biological processes and is subjective by showing it wasn"t a universal constant held by the analogy of the spider. He also went on to argue for its reliance on comparison. Unfortunately, Pro posted broken links and hence, they were unreliable and insufficient justification for his assertions.

Con states only humans are capable of conceptualizing. I believe Con misrepresents Pro here. It does not conclusively follow that if it is acknowledged that "there are actions that are universally right and wrong", they must then be objective. There seems to be conflation between epistemic and logical possibility here. Con states that evolution cannot affirm whether Morality is objective or not, however, this was a red herring. Since Pro arguments held more weight, Pro wins this round.

Con showed that Pro"s analogy can be due to instinct since they lack the ability to reason. Unfortunately no arguments were given to support this contention. Con then ends off by showing how varying degrees of moral-ness, doesn"t imply whether or not, it is subjective or objective, which is a valid point.
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
Yeah sry.. im working on it now lol
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
@ CorieMike

Were you still intending to create a RFD? I'd very much like to see some feedback on this debate!
Posted by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
I will submit a proper and honest RFD either today or tomorrow...
Posted by Benshapiro 1 year ago
Benshapiro
Lmao I wonder why :P
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
I recognise some of these arguments... :-p.
Shoot me a PM when it's over if you want me to vote. I will vote bomb for the person who promises to worship me most on the forums
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by CorieMike 1 year ago
CorieMike
ChaosismBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
ChaosismBenshapiroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeits the last round so I award conduct to PRO. I think the debate was missing some deeper characteristics of what morality really is. It seemed like pro was trying to say that morality is emotions and being that emotional deepth is lacking in other animals we can see that it doesn't exist, but I feel like this was never properly addressed so I didn't think I should actually vote on it, overall though I think pro does a better job with clash of his arguments and explanations over all, but again I didn't follow this debate well enough to actually vote on it.