The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
EvanK
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Right and wrong is perception

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,627 times Debate No: 23414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (4)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

I believe that right and wrong is a perception. If someone disagrees then I hope to have fun with them.

1-acceptance
2-posistions
3-rebuttals
4-summarization/rebuttals

Right-in accordance with what is good, proper, or just

Wrong-not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice

Perception-immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities

EvanK

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that right and wrong are not just perceptions, but that there is a right and wrong, no matter how you perceive the world.

This seems like an interesting challenge. Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

"but that there is a right and wrong, no matter how you perceive the world."

I will be arguing that not everyone has the same views. Right and wrong is subjective. The evidence of this claim is evident by the existence of this site. We are on this site because we have views that are different possibly from the majority. We believe that something is moral while others don't. This debate is evidence itself. I believe right and wrong is based on perception. While my opponent believes that right and wrong are objective. He believes his views are right while I believe his views are wrong. This is evidence itself that right and wrong is based on perception. Below are some more reasons.


1. Morality is subjective.

morality-accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper.

So morality is basically our perception of right and wrong.

What is perceived to be right is subjective when talking in a singular sense. In a government witch makes laws about what is right and wrong it gets its ideas of what's right and wrong based on majority of opinion. If morality was objective and unchangeable and all ideas were generally accepted to be either right or wrong then all governments would have the same laws. In America all states would either allow gay marriage or all states would outlaw it. Laws can be changed. Witch means that not everyone has the same views on what is right and wrong. it also means that views of what is right and wrong tend to change. I may believe that pornography should be illegal only because porn is just like prostitution, but because there's a camera involved for some reason that makes it legal. Since porn is legal then prostitution should be legal. Majority of people who vote on this may believe differently than me. My opinion of what's right and wrong is not a general fact that everyone agrees on. If it was then 100% would either agree or disagree. As we know with most moral issues there's almost never a wipe out vote of 99-1 .Thus we can see that morality is subjective. A so called witch in Africa may believe it is right to kill children to make their magic stronger. The community may think its right to burn the witches[1] ( witch happens alot) or majority of people somewhere may feel its right to burn a thief. [2]

( I am going to post this example, I warn anyone who watches these links these websites are extremely goreish and gruesome and may make you cry and or have nightmares, so I caution those weak of stomach to not watch this.)

http://www.liveleak.com... [1]
http://goregrish.com... [2]

While majority of people in Africa may believe it is objectionable to burn thief's and witches, America im almost positive that majority of us believe that no one deserves to burn alive nor could most watch it. Obviously a majority believes something is right while another majority believes something is wrong. One culture may see something as being justified while another culture may see that thing being taboo. This also proves morality is subjective. Witch proves that right and wrong is a perception.


2. Even if morality was objective, right and wrong is still a perception.

Even if some how my opponent proves morality is objective, right and wrong had to have been based on how we see things in a moral sense. Even if America is a democratic republic, its because America perceives this type of government to be the best for itself. oppossers of this type of government may think otherwise. But to get to either of these conclusions or any conclusion on any matter. We base our judgements on something based on how we perceive something ethically. people get their ideas based on different perceptions of the world and different situations were in. Witch is why we may have opposing opinions on things. So in the end to even have an ideal on something we had to have had something to influence our perception of the subject to reach the conclusion. Thus right and wrong is still a perception even if morality was objective.


Conclusively I have proven these unmistakable points being: 1. Morality is subjective , 2. Even if morality was objective, right and wrong is still a perception.

Thus I have proven my case and I believe that pro should be the victor of this debate.


EvanK

Con

1. Morality

Morality was given to us by God. He created this world for us to live in harmony together, and gave us the [1] Ten Commandments as a basis for how we should live. He also instilled in our human nature, the natural inclination to do "good". Not only good in our eyes, but in his. He created "good" and "bad". "Right" and "wrong". So, whether or not we decide to see it that way, it is still the truth. Even if we decide to see murder, robbery, or rape as good things, God made it otherwise. You don't have to agree with it, to see that it is true. Murder is wrong, even if some believe it to be otherwise. Same for robbery and rape. We have a natural inclination to be good moral people, and so I argue that morals have been instilled to us, by God, and that while some may believe opposite, it is still true.

2. Opinions vs Morality

"Even if some how my opponent proves morality is objective, right and wrong had to have been based on how we see things in a moral sense."

What this comes down to is, is right and wrong an opinion, or natural law. My examples of murder, rape, and robbery, are natural laws, that is, it is naturally immoral to commit either, while it is naturally moral to give life, and to look out for your neighbors, and to give to your neighbors. But if, lets say, you argue it is right to like baseball, but wrong to like basketball, that is a matter of opinion, not morals. So, my point is, yes opinions are perceptive, but, right and wrong, in the form of moral and immoral, are naturally instilled in us, in our human nature, and so certain things are naturally moral or immoral, regardless of your point of view. You can argue whether it is right or wrong to like a sport, a genre of music, or have a certain form of government. But you cannot argue what is moral, is immoral, or vice versa.

Conclusion

I argue that Morality is not subjective, but that it is naturally instilled upon us by God, in our human nature. Good and bad can be perceptive, in the form of many different things, but morality is not. Morality is certain, undeniable. No matter what your point of view is, it is morally wrong to kill, rape, or steal. So my conclusion is, morality is certain, "right" and "wrong", can come in many different forms, but in the form of "moral" and "immoral", they are certian, no matter your point of view.





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

For this round my fellow debaters, I will attempt to demolish my opponents case and then introduce adhesive glue figuratively to whatever cracks that my opponent may have created in my case later.

1. Morality.

"Morality was given to us by God. He created this world for us to live in harmony together, and gave us the [1] Ten Commandments as a basis for how we should live"

The counter argument made by my opponent assumes that everyone believes in god and that In accordance to his claim that morality is objective, that would then mean it is naturally in all human minds that we all accept that god is real. As we can see this is not the case. If the existence of god was approved by 99% of humans on earth then yes the idea of god would be a commonly known or accepted fact. Since most people on this site are mostly atheists, and since Everyone has the freewill to reject the existence of go, then the idea of god itself is a subjective view. The existence of god is based on peoples opinions. Some accept the teaching of a omnipotent,omniscient,omnibenevolent god as existing while a huge chunk of other humans believe all of these traits are fallacious. Thus as we can see here human morality is not based on the belief of god. Also all humans do not have a natural inclination to o good. If that was the case then everyone would help old ladies across the street or give to beggars or donate money to charities. Since all people don't do these things witch would be considered naturally good so-say, My opponents claim at beast is nothing but an assumption to say that humans have a natural inclination to do good.

"He created "good" and "bad". "Right" and "wrong"."

If god created an absolute right and wrong for everything then why do we have the free will to decide what we believe? If god created an absolute moral view on all things then isnt it a contradiction to let humans deceive themselves when god is supposed to be a god of justice, rightceoussness and understanding?


"Murder is wrong, even if some believe it to be otherwise. Same for robbery and rape."

1. Murder is wrong according to whom? I've defeated your first point of god. Isnt god supposed to kill the devil and sinners anyway? If murder is wrong then in this aspect my opponent has just created a paradox.

2.
Is murder wrong when its the only way to avoid being killed? Is murder wrong when you've been captured and tortured for weeks? Is murder wrong when the courts murder the killers in our society that rape and kill little girls? Society has differing views on these things. Some say yes and some say no. Witch proves that moral views are subjective.

3
As far as rape goes, some people say if you tell someone there going to get raped its not rape anymore. Some people like me believe that rape starts off as rape but in the process somewhere may turn into consensual sex because they like it.

"We have a natural inclination to be good moral people,"

This is only true if morality is subjective because what I believe is a right way to live, someone else may think otherwise. We make and or follow whatever morals we choose to accept or follow. Witch means morality is subjective and based on personal opinions of things. Our opinions may be influence but we still choose what to believe.

2. Opinions V's morality.

Natural law is defined as----
a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.

1. All opinions are derived from the nature of life but people still have differing opinions and different perceptions on morality.

2.Right reason? The perception of right and wrong is subjective. A stubborn person will still believe that the earth is flat even though NASA says otherwise. Perception involves psychology and ethics and what we accept to be reality. Witch would explain how someone can believe whatever they want to believe.
3. Religion- as we know not everyone accepts religion.

As we see none of these aspects of the definition of natural law applies to morality or the perceptions of right and wrong thus right and wrong isnt a case of natural law.

3. Rape, Murder, and robbery in addition to previous arguments

Rape-
some husbands think rape is moral when the wife refuses to have sex. Some think that its not eve rape.

Murder- if murder is a naturally accepted unethical action then why does our military kill people and Americans are happy when wars are won by killing people. last I checked they don't even care that there beloved ones just killed numerous people.

Robbery- In some cases robbery may be perceived as borrowing.


This round has come down to those 3 topics that I have bolded and underlined above. My opponent still has ailed to prove that right and wrong is not a perception, I on the other hand have given solid unrefutted reasons to vote for pro. Thus I believe pro has the leverage here.




EvanK

Con

1. Morality

First off, you don't have to believe in God in order for him to exist. Am I suggesting that Atheists are wrong for not believing in God? Yes. Am I forcing them to believe? No, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. There is, strong evidence pointing towards his existence (and I'm not talking about myths found in the bible), but this is an argument for another day. My point is, you don't have to believe in God for him to exist. He can and does exist. Something cannot come from nothing. And the majority of humans on this earth believe he does. That being said, God has given us a set of rules to live a good life, and whether or not some people believe in them or not, doesn't matter. Common sense suggests them to be true. Even Atheists can't argue against the Ten commandments (with the exception for the keeping God's day holy, and not taking his name in vain, etc). You cannot argue that murder, rape and thievery are morally just. You simply cannot. Many things in this world are debatable, but morals are not one of them. There is no just argument justifying murder, rape, and theft. You may argue, that of course there is. People don't have to believe in everything you believe. That is true. But it doesn't make them right. There are simply things that cannot be argued logically. These are just a few of them.

2. "If god created an absolute right and wrong for everything then why do we have the free will to decide what we believe?"

Yes, God gave us free will to do as we please. That doesn't mean that it is right for us to kill, just because we can. Our world as we know it couldn't exist without free will, so God gave it to us. But he also told us how to live our life without doing wrong. Whether or not we choose to do so is totally up to us. We are never forced to do harm, we choose to do so. So, yes, God did give us absolute wrong, and absolute right. Whether or not we choose to see it is up to us. But that doesn't change the fact of whether murder, rape, and theft are right or wrong. Our opinion may be that it is right to do either, when that is far from the truth.

3. Reasons Morality is indisputable

3.1 "Murder is wrong according to whom?"

Murder is wrong according to logic. According to common sense. It takes away that person's right to life, their right to choose what to do with their life. Anyone arguing otherwise is should provide good reasoning as to why murder is ok. Life is precious. You get one chance at it, and it is indisputably wrong to take away that of another person.

3.2 Definition of [1]"murder"-"The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". There is no malice intended when you're killing someone to defend yourself. And as for the death penalty, once again, we are talking about people's opinions on whether it is ok to kill a criminal. It doesn't change the definition of murder, meaning that whether or not people agree that it is morally permissible to kill a criminal, it is most definitely not morally permissible to murder someone.

You might argue that this is contradictory, but no, it isn't. Definition of [2]"kill"-"To put an end to ". So there is a difference between killing and murdering. Murdering is unjustifiably depriving someone of their right to life. And while killing is depriving someone of their life, if you did it in self defense, with no malice involved, then it is not murder.

3.3 Definition of [3]"rape"-"Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent." Under the definition of rape, it is rape unless the victim agrees to carry out sexual activities. Basically, if she says yes, it's consensual sex, if she doesn't agree to it, it is rape, or at least sexual assault. So no, it cannot be debated as to whether rape is moral or otherwise. It is obviously immoral.

4. Are humans naturally good?

Yes, humans are naturally good. They most certainly aren't naturally evil. While they are naturally selfish, this doesn't mean they aren't good. Just because some people are bad, doesn't mean they were naturally bad. The reason they are bad is because they were raised that way. How can you prove humans are naturally good? You cannot scientifically prove it, but you cannot prove otherwise, either. However, why are the majority of people good people? Even Atheists tend to follow the ten commandments (with exceptions made earlier in the argument). This is because humans are naturally good, and so they teach their children to do so. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

5. Opinion vs Morality

Yes, the perception of right and wrong can be subjective. But morality cannot be subjective. Like I said earlier, you can have different opinions with different people on sports, music, politics and much more, but that doesn't make either right or wrong. But as for morals, it isn't possible to argue the morality of murder, thievery or rape. I defy anyone to argue otherwise. So yes, some things are subject to different opinions, but there are things that aren't. Morality is one of them.

Conclusion

I have shown why, logically, morality is constant, and cannot be argued, whether or not a certain individual agrees with it or not. Trying to argue that murder is wrong is like trying to argue that 2+2=5. It cannot be done.


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I first would like to thank my opponent for a fun debate. Though this debate was fun, there are some holes in my opponents case. I will first point this out and explain why pro should win this debate.

"Yes, the perception of right and wrong can be subjective. But morality cannot be subjective."

In this sentence my opponent is affirming that right and wrong is a perception by saying..." the perception of right and wrong" he agrees with my case. I believe pro should win because of this but I will continue because i dont want to base debates on concurrence alone.

Morality-of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

http://dictionary.reference.com...als


This portion alone proves my case but lets move along shall we?

1.Morality


"Am I suggesting that Atheists are wrong for not believing in God?"

It's extremely awkward you say this because you yourself said the bible contains myths. Why should people believe in a god of myths? There are many myths. Why should we believe in god when the information that we get about god is a myth as you claim? How is it logical to believe in something of witch the source is a myth. When the roots of a tree are proven to not exist it is then logical to say that there is no tree, or at least that the rest of the tree will soon die. Unless a tree has strong roots then we cannot assume that there are leaves, branches,etc... because trees start off as branches.

"There is, strong evidence pointing towards his existence"

With the comment you just made above you yourself have proven the nonexistent of god. Lets not debate about god anymore because god arguments arnt to resolution related because even without god we still can exercise moral decisions?

"That being said, God has given us a set of rules to live a good life, and whether or not some people believe in them or not, doesn't matter. Common sense suggests them to be true."

Just because my teachers or parents give me a rule doesnt mean that they make sense, or it's logical, or that it's common sense. I have a question. If god gave us the same universal rules to follow via common sense they why do people have differing opinions on right and wrong in the first place. If god created right and wrong. Then how can a person who is viewed as being wrong by majority of our society still feel that they are right? Example, gay marriage. If god said it's wrong then why do they feel there right?

"The survey of 4,013 adults in August shows that 49 percent say that homosexuality is morally wrong, 9 percent morally acceptable and 35 percent say it is not a moral issue."............http://www.opposingviews.com...



"You cannot argue that murder, rape and thievery are morally just."

Let me make very clear that this depends on a persons perception of right and wrong.

1. Murder. Apparently majority of Americans support murder judging on the presence of the second amendment. The only reasons people use guns is to potentially murder. There is also the situation with our military. Since we need to protect our country murder is then justified. As we can see in this situation right and wrong is a perception.

2. Rape- Some husbands feel its ethical to rape there wife's if they don't have sex with them. Why? Because they believe that when they get married that each party is obligated to have sex. Like I said right and wrong is a perception.

3. Robbery- Maybe a mothers baby has gone 6 days without formula or milk, wouldn't you rob for your dieing baby? I would. We can also see here that right and wrong is a perception.



"Our world as we know it couldn't exist without free will, so God gave it to us."

This isnt logical whatsoever. As we know logic gets you from A to Z. Witch this fails to do. This world could exist without freewill. The god you believe in could have just programmed us to do these things. Also we cannot base the existence of god on humans having freewill. That's like saying sense cotton exists then pillows exist. Not logical because pillows can be stuffed with other things than just cotton.

Lastly he is once again basing his arguments on the assumption that god exists witch cannot be proven. So Please drop the god argument.


3. Reasons Morality is indisputable

I have already defeated this idea earlier with one of your synonymous quotes. Thus I see no reason to do it again. I do want to say one thing though.

"There is no malice intended when you're killing someone to defend yourself."

We hunted and premeditated bin ladens murder with malice and forethought but majority of Americans feel it was justified. This phenomenon so-say can only be logically explained if right and wrong is based on ones perspective and perception.

4. Are humans naturally good?

Pollution
extinction of animals

If we are naturally good then why do we do these things witch by majority are considered bad?



Conclusion

As we can see right and wrong is a perception. My opponent even agrees with me on this. My opponent never really tackled my example of the villager burning witches and feeling justified about it. Cultural taboos are only differing cultures perceptions on things. I have defeated my opponents god arguments and any other arguments he had. I have also proved my points being........1. Morality is subjective. 2. Even if morality was objective, right and wrong is still a perception. I have proven my points with opinions V's morality. I have also justified rape, murder, and robberies. My ability to even do this suggests that right and wrong is based on perception. No matter how one puts it all decisions we make are based on the information we receive via our senses witch is our perception. Thus right and wrong is based on perception.
EvanK

Con

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for an enjoyable debate.

1. Morality

Yes, I said right and wrong could be subjective. I'd be stupid for stating otherwise. However, in your first argument you argued about morality. That is what I have been arguing. You cannot argue that certain things like murder, rape and thievery are morally sound. Not logically.

1.1 Murder

If you are protecting yourself from another person who is harming you, it is not murder. It is necessary self defense. I defined murder and killing in my last argument. Murdering requires malice and aforethought of the action. You have to be acting with the intent to murder the victim. If you are taking necessary measures to defend yourself, then no, you didn't plan on killing him, nor were you acting in malice. So it is not a murder, nor is it immoral. In the case of our military, they are defending our citizens from the malice and harm of other countries. You can argue that the war on terror was started with the intent to kill known terrorist leaders. This is true. But we did it in order to keep our country safe. Not out of malice. Definition of [1] malice, by the way, is the "desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another." While our military is causing "pain, injury or distress" to another, aka terrorist leaders, they are doing it to protect this country, and sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils, the 2nd evil, would be to have complete neglect of it's citizens and allow them to be harmed by the malice of others.

1.2 Rape

So, because some men may believe that it's "ethical to rape there wife's if they don't have sex with them", it is now moral? No, it is not. Human rights and the ten commandments say so. It is 100% immoral to rape someone. Period. Why? Because God and common sense say so. Would you (hypothetical person) like me to force you to do something against your will? Of course not. Therefore, common sense also says that it is immoral.

1.3 Robbery

Is robbery 100% immoral? Absolutely. Would I do it if I absolutely had to in order to feed my kids? Absolutely. Again, desperate times call for desperate measures. It is still, technically immoral to rob someone, or their store, but if I had to feed my kids, I would risk jail time for it. Doesn't make it moral however.

2. God

I brought God into the argument because the basis of morality comes from God. Yes, parts of the bible are myths, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. He gave us rules to live by, and it would be stupid to argue against them. There is no logical argument in favor of murder, thievery or rape (as well as other things), and so it can be concluded that morality is not objective, but is constant.

Yes, without free will, we would be robots. Our world wouldn't exist the way it does without free will. We wouldn't have desires, we wouldn't have emotions, we wouldn't have lots of things, without free will. So yes, God gave it to us. But he also gave us guidelines, and the will to do as we please. It is up to us to make that choice. He did make us naturally moral, because like I said before, if he made us otherwise, then we wouldn't act as we do today. We wouldn't teach our kids to be good, but the opposite.

As far as humans causing pollution or the extinction of animals, that doesn't matter. I am talking about human morality. The way we act towards each other. God never commanded us against the killing of animals, and without any help from humans, millions upon millions of species of animals have gone extinct. As for pollution goes, that is for a whole other argument, but to keep it short, we don't pollute the earth as much as the media leads on, and again, I am talking about our actions towards humans, not the earth.

Conclusion

I have shown to you why, right and wrong in the form of morality, is not subject to perception. You can have your own opinion, but that doesn't make murder, rape, or robbery right. It doesn't change the morality (or rather, immorality) of it. Yes, right and wrong in the form of opinions on sports, politics and movies may vary, and will vary, however we have been arguing about morality which is constant. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and robbery is wrong. It may seems justified in some cases, but it is still what it is. I therefore conclude that morality and immorality are constant, and cannot be changed by peoples opinions.

Thanks again to my opponent for an enjoyable debate. This was certainly a hard topic to defend, but I gave it my best. I'll just wait and see what you guys think.




[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
advise taken
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Frozen, a word of advice:

People don't change their votes based on comments made. People judge -usually to the best of their ability- and people look for different things. Sometimes, people look for stupid things, sometimes they genuinely are unable to recognize what constitutes a win or loose (most common flaw), and sometimes they genuinely have a different opinion. Even at the highest levels (like NFL nationals), reasonable minds can disagree on who wins or looses.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
To mr 16adams.......i have shown that things that are considered wrong in society like robbery can be justified and proven to be right in a certain situation. So Ive shown that robbery isnt completly immoral
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
To mr. Johnny just because you vote for someones side that doesnt mean you nessesarily agree with there side. Why do you think we have that section where it asks do you agree. Its not weighed in points. The votes should be based on the reffuting skills and other factor witch it is.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Johnny,

I suppose after taking an introductory course in deductive logic, one could easily come to that conclusion. Here's some food for thought: one can (and should) cast a ballot not based on what is or isn't (or what the judge perceives either to be) but what was in fact presented over the course of the debate. In other words, to properly judge a round one must distance himself or herself from their investment in the issue, and evaluate the debate in its own terms. To cast a ballot for either perspective is not to endorse the belief, but simply to say that one side argued more compellingly than the other. I'm hoping that you (Johnnyis) already knew this, and were just trying to be amusing or ironic or whatever. However, I want to leave nothing to the wind here.

Cheers,

YYW
Posted by johnnyis 5 years ago
johnnyis
I hope that everyone who voted Pro realizes that by voting you asserting your belief that Pro is right; in other words, Pro is absolutely right in saying that right and wrong are subjective, and thus every vote for Pro is really a vote for Con.

That was easy.
Posted by johnnyis 5 years ago
johnnyis
I hope that everyone who voted Pro realizes that by voting you asserting your belief that Pro is right; in other words, Pro is absolutely right in saying that right and wrong are subjective, and thus every vote for Pro is really a vote for Con.

That was easy.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
hostility is unnessesary
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
1. This isn't even a LD topic. I dunno WTF you think you're talking about.
2. Non-sided topics? Are you serious? -.-
- Abortion
- Gun rights
- Existence of God
- Gay marriage
- Anything political/religious

I can keep going on for a while.
Posted by EvanK 5 years ago
EvanK
I would also like to state that my statements found in this debate may or may not be my actual opinions.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
frozen_eclipseEvanKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that right and wrong are almost always linked to morality and morality is more likely then not objective. He showed opinions exist, but this does not change morality (making it inherently right) or right overall to society. Con wins.
Vote Placed by Matthew3.14 5 years ago
Matthew3.14
frozen_eclipseEvanKTied
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: As an objective view of this debate, it is shown that Con gave arguments that were easily refuted such as the "natural creation" that did not have anything to do with how a person was good or bad after external environmental experience. Pro pointed this out during Rounds 3 and 4. In addition, Pro gave sources that not only refuted Con's but also supported his own.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
frozen_eclipseEvanKTied
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: This is close, insomuch as neither side especially argued convincingly. Both sides will benefit from additional experience, for reasons which are obvious. However, because the topic is morality in a general sense, and not an evaluation of acts, pro's argument more directly supports the resolution than con's counters.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
frozen_eclipseEvanKTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Pro arguments because he barely outargued Con, though Con did a fantastic job. I gave Con spelling and grammar because his rounds were more readable than Pro's. I also gave Con sources not because of the quantity but because I feel his backed up his claims better; this is not to say Pro didn't research as he obviously did use statistics and such.