The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
DavidsonWildcat15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Secular objective morality exists

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 16333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

socialpinko

Con

I do not want to go back to my habit of trying to shift the BOP when it shouldn't but for this debate I will ask my opponent to begin with their arguments in the first round. This is really just a learning debate for me.

For this debate both debaters will assume that there is no god or almighty arbiter of morality that exists outside of nature.

Objective will mean to have the quality of existing independent of human thought or opinion.

Morality will be defined as:

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.[1]

Please no semantical arguments, no forfeits, and no inappropriate conduct. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
DavidsonWildcat15

Pro

If we are assuming that there is no God, or higher Being, then objective human morality would consist of a human being, without and independent of human influence, either from themselves or from other people, making the moral and virtuous choice in a situation that requires a decision of morality.

My argument is that this objective morality exists. When a child is born, they are born into a world that is full of people that are both very moral, but they are also born into a world that is full of immoral people. When the child exits the womb, objective morality exists. Babies and children are the most innocent things in the entire world. There is nothing in their mind or conscience telling them to make an immoral choice. Parents' roles are to teach children the things that are right and the things that are wrong. The children would not even know that these immoral things are wrong until their parents tell them that they are wrong. It is at the point that the children realize that there are "right" things and "wrong" things that they begin to see that they can make immoral choices.

With the influence of parents telling children that certain things are wrong, and therefore "forbidding them," it is only making the child or person want to do these things. The natural choice for the child, without knowledge of there being a decision that is rebellious, would be the thing that seems the most right to them.

Why do most teenagers try drugs and alcohol? The bottom line is because their parents tell them not to. If a child grew up in a hypothetical world where they were never told that drugs were bad, but the drugs played the same role that they did today, then the children would see that there was no need to use drugs, and they would stray away from drug use and abuse. It is at this point that objective morality is obvious. In our world, most kids choose to use drugs because it is just the rebellious thing to do. It is not because they honestly want to have the drugs in their body. Without knowing that drugs are bad, and that people do not want them to use them, the students and teenagers would not partake in drug use.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

It seems as though my opponent does not understand the resolution that he is arguing for. My opponent is to argue that morality can exist objectively without a god or almighty arbiter that exists outside of nature. My opponent has not brought any evidence so far and so I will give my opponent the next round to actually bring a case for the resolution.
DavidsonWildcat15

Pro

I did bring a case??? I just do not think you read my argument right. I argued that objective morality exists and how.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

I have read through my opponent's argument three times and have found no argument for secular objective morality. I will ask for him to very clearly lay it out in the next round so that we may begin debating as I have read through it and cannot find anything that one would call an argument.
DavidsonWildcat15

Pro

DavidsonWildcat15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

Seeing as all my opponent did was provide a much too lengthy explanation for why teenagers do drugs and then when I asked him to elaborate he simply said he did bring an argument and that I didn't read it. I will ask voters though to read through my opponent's posts and try to find a defense of secular objective morality. If my opponent did bring one then I have failed to refute it and you should vote for my opponent. If you see like me that my opponent brought no such argument then I ask for a Con vote by default as there was nothing to refute.

Vote Con
DavidsonWildcat15

Pro

DavidsonWildcat15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Oh wait, I didn't notice you were Con.... Oops. Darn, lol.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Where? You brought no points. You simply ranted about drugs and why teenagers do them.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
That is what I am arguing for.
Posted by DavidsonWildcat15 5 years ago
DavidsonWildcat15
I argued it DA
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Yea, I'll be arguing for the proposition that naturalism cannot sustain an objective theory of morality.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
As long as you know that we will assume god does not exist, I'd be up for it.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Hey social, I'll gladly debate you on this.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Why didn't you actually provide an argument? Do you know what the resolution is?
Posted by DavidsonWildcat15 5 years ago
DavidsonWildcat15
Youre a noob! Get over yourself..your bout to get your a$$ handed to you
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Crap. I didn't want a n00b to accept this debate. Hey DavidsonWildcat15 you better not forfeit! Of course who am I to call people n00bs.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoDavidsonWildcat15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Fahfit.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
socialpinkoDavidsonWildcat15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments that Pro did not refute due to multiple forfeits