The Instigator
Apeiron
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
CIIReligion
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Moral Argument is Sound

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 4 votes the winner is...
Apeiron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,923 times Debate No: 29108
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (4)

 

Apeiron

Pro

Theoretical Moral Argument


Necessity Claim
(NC)
On atheism, what grounds can we affirm the reality of morals? The great atheists Russell, Sartre and Nietzsche, have warned that with the death of God there are “altogether no moral truths.” Objective moral values and duties, that are valid and binding regardless of human opinion, would not exist and so there would be no basis for affirming or denying true moral worth or obligation, for true moral prescriptions requires a prescriber.



If morals are subjective or unreal, then they're merely by-products of evolution. Since what justification is there for differential treatment of species? If evolution were run backwards, a different set of morals would arise maybe. So to think humans are special is to be guilty of speciesism, an unjustified bias towards one species over another.



Animals kill, but they don't murder. What then is the basis of real morals on atheism? Who or what imposes true moral duties? The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible and merely relative apart from the concept of God. As the atheist Paul Kurtz says, "If the moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in a habit and custom, feeling and fashion, then the rapist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably."



The issue before us isn’t whether we must believe in God to have moral lives, or if we can we formulate an ethics system without reference to God, and nor is the question can we recognize the existence of moral reality without reference to God? Moral ontology shouldn't be confused with our moral epistemology. I’m concerned with the former of these. See here for a logical distinction,




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




Such questions confuse God's existence with belief in God's existence. I’m only arguing that a necessarily existing standard is necessary for the existence of objective morality, and God is the least arbitrary and most plausible candidate.



Theist and secular humanist alike, indeed everyone can appeal to their intuition of morals; for even the bible says God's law is "written on the hearts" of all men-- Christian or non-Christian. Thus the central question about morals concerns their ontological foundation, not how we can know them. It's not obvious to see that atheism provides an ontological foundation for objective morals, for our sense of morals on naturalism is only an illusion wrought by socio-biological conditioning.



An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality. So the very paradigm or standard of morals, necessary for moral values, seems to be very much like what we mean by an all Good God who is all Love.



True moral duty arises in response to an imperative issued from a competent authority. Who or what else is as qualified to issue moral commands which are valid and binding apart from any subjective opinion? Without God, we're simply left in moral anti-realism and nihilism.



God's nature, if it exists, is necessary for objective morals, and if you separate God's essence from God, specifically his moral nature, then he's no longer God.



Suppose a possible world in which God refrained from creating, in such a world there would never be other agents capable of moral action, & so no 'contra-Good' would emerge, and so no value scale would exist. Yet God would remain as a supreme reality. This is what's meant as objective. It's not until 'not-Good' emerges that an ontological value frame dawns. And I argue 'the Good' is God, a standard, by virtue of his axiological perfection. God then is the ontological grounds for morals, meaning God is (what Plato called) "the Good," the standard from which all other moral events, states are judged against; the very paradigm of what ought to be, if you will.



Such a being is the most plausible and least arbitrary candidate for the necessary standard required for moral truths, for without such a being, where would true moral prescriptions and value arise? The theist has an answer, God, as the standard, is just as necessary for moral value (and therefore duty) as any standard is necessary for a value judgment. It’s like arguing,




"If the Sun does not exist, then day & night as we know it doesn't exist;

day & night as we know it exists;
therefore the sun exists."



Further God is not merely a subject, but a maximally great necessarily existing being. If God exists, he would exist in all possible worlds, which makes him not merely a subject of certain possible worlds, but rather an objective feature of all reality by virtue of his maximal greatness. So I affirm God exists necessarily and thus objectively.




Factual Claim
(FC)
But now if moral truths don’t exist, then God doesn’t either. However we’ve good reasons to think objective moral truths do in fact exist. From which it follows that God exists. For it seems that our moral experience is on a par with our sensory experience. We perceive external truths just as we perceive the internal truth of morals. In moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective morals, just as in sensory experience we apprehend a realm of the physical world.



There is therefore no more reason to deny moral objectivity than there is to deny the physical world. Literally, if you are skeptical of the objectivity of morals, then you ought to also doubt that you have a head! So in the absence of any type of defeater for both perceptions, we're rational to trust both types of our sense perceptions at least.



Moreover, concerning the apprehension of objective moral truths, philosopher Michael Ruse affirms that "the man who says it's acceptable to rape a child is just as mistaken as saying 2+2=5!" Surely actions like rape aren't just socially unacceptable, they are moral abominations! People who fail to see this are simply morally handicapped and there's no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we clearly see in our moral perception. Thus any arguments for moral nihilism will always include premises which are less obvious.



Morals are necessarily true, but that doesn’t show they don’t need an explanation, 2 + 3 = 5 is necessarily because the Peano axioms are necessarily true. Necessarily, “no event precedes itself” because Temporal Becoming is real. So necessary truths can’t stand in relations of explanatory priority to one another, for that's implausible.





The argument presented thus far can be formulated as follows,




1) If objective moral values and duties don’t exist, then God doesn’t exist (NC)

2) Objective moral values and duties exist (FC)

3) Therefore God exists






Practical Moral Argument

Lastly, William James said, “practical arguments can be used only when theoretical arguments are insufficient to decide a question of urgent and pragmatic importance.” But a practical argument can also be used to back up or motivate the acceptance of a theoretical argument.


To believe then, that God does not exist and there is thus no moral accountability is quite literally de-moralizing (a deterioration of moral motivation: it’s hard to do the right thing, and altruism in the face of meaningless morality is therefore undermined quite significantly when desire is taken into account. Theism therefore is a morally advantageous belief.) So within the absence of any atheistic moral ontology, theism provides both theoretical and practical grounds for belief in God and motivation to accept the theoretical arguments for God.
CIIReligion

Con

This is a bad excuse, but my browser keeps shutting down and I keep loosing everything. I am just going to refute the Moral Argument and ignore the Apologetics you presented.

1) If objective moral values and duties don’t exist, then God doesn’t exist (NC)

Replace "God" with any other noun and you will see how this premise defeats itself and fails completely.

2) Objective moral values and duties exist (FC)

Who says? Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, who?

3) Therefore God exists

Now take the noun you used in the first premise and replace "God" here. Does it still make sense?

This argument is flawed from the beginning.

To claim that you must believe in a god to have objective, subjective or arbitrary morality is akin to saying, "You must believe there is a Santa Clause or else there are no presents" Show me where an atheist is any more amoral than theists and I will sell you ocean front property in Idaho for $5!

I will post citations and give links, if needed, in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Apeiron

Pro









Remarks

As per normative debating rules, any dropped relevant arguments result in a failure to carry the burden of proof. Con admits, "I am just going to refute the Moral Argument and ignore the Apologetics you presented."


By "apologetics" it seems Con meant my support of both of the premises (since apologia means a defense anyways). In so doing though, he fails to notice my anticipation of his so called refutation he presented in his opening round. Both of which I need only point the voter to below.



Lastly, a blatant refusal to engage and even ignore my sound arguments, counts as a conduct violation and points ought to be awarded as such if the voter sees fit.





Theoretical Moral Argument



Necessity Claim
(NC): If objective moral values and duties don’t exist, then God doesn’t exist


Against the first premise here, Con merely says that any other person, place or thing necessitates moral truths. But surely this seems insane! If anything, it's less plausible than my support for 1.


First, I anticipated this ridiculously intellectually lazy response in my opening round with this,




"If morals are subjective or unreal [necessitated by mere contingent nouns], then they're merely by-products of evolution." And such subjective grounding of morals isn't what I mean by "objective,"



"valid and binding regardless of human opinion"




Hence in ignoring my support of 1, Con overlooks the fact that subjective morals (rooted in mere contingent nouns) aren't objective morals. Thus he straw-mans the whole of premise one.
But leave that aside, Con's treatment of God as a mere contingent being forgets my argument,



"God is not merely a subject, but a maximally great necessarily existing being. If God exists, he would exist in all possible worlds, which makes him not merely a subject of certain possible worlds, but rather an objective feature of all reality by virtue of his maximal greatness. So I affirm God exists necessarily and thus objectively."




We can further develop this point with use of the Ontological Argument. Most philosophers agree that if God’s existence is possible, then he must exist. That is, God's existence is necessary, and necessary existence is a property. A well known and well defended argument is below where steps 2-5 are uncontroversial. The key premise is 1.




Ontological Argument


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.




Possible world conjuncts must be capable of being true individually and together. For example, The prime minister is a prime number isn’t even possibly true! So saying God exists in some possible world means the proposition: God existsis true in some maximal description of reality. Thus God is ‘maximally excellent’ in every possible world: God has ‘maximal greatness.’




To have Maximal Excellence is to possess great making properties. Great making properties are things like omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. But we can gradually discover what a great making property is, without undermining the objective notion that God would, by definition, possess all such properties. Maximal Greatness is thus possibly exemplified. But then it must exist in a maximally excellent way in every possible world, including the actual world, therefore God exists.





a priori Warrant for P1


A maximally great being is intuitively coherent and so therefore possibly instantiated. Thus in order for the argument to fail the concept of God must be logically incoherent. But a maximally great being doesn’t seem even remotely incoherent, so we have at least prima facie warrant for thinking it’s possible that a maximally great being exists.




a posteriori Warrant for P1


Plantinga says that if we “carefully ponder” 1, and objections to it and if we consider its connections with other propositions we accept / reject and we still find it compelling, then we’re within our rational right to accept 1.


This recommendation is a far cry from the a priori speculations decried by modal skeptics. For even if we cannot come to a priori warrant, we’re rational in accepting 1 by a posteriori warrant from successful arguments such as the cosmological and moral arguments for the existence of God.




Consider the Conceptualist Argument,


1. Abstract objects, such as numbers & propositions, are either independently existing realities or else concepts in some mind

2. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities.

3. If abstract objects are concepts in some mind, then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists.

4. Therefore, an omniscient metaphysically necessary being exists.




Premise 1 would simply require a refutation of Nominalism (view of non-existing abstract objects), which has already been accomplished and can be found,




http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org...




Premise 2 simply requires a Platonism Refutation, which has already been accomplished in the literature by showing not only how abstract objects are causally isolated, but are also irrelevant to what transpires in the world.




Premise 3 excludes abstract objects as grounded in a human mind, for there are just too many abstract objects to be grounded in anything less than an infinite mind; and since many of these objects exist necessarily, they can’t be grounded in any contingent mind.




Thus this leads us to a conclusion which supports premise 1 of the ontological argument. Surely, though, it just seems obvious that a metaphysically necessary being is the ground for abstract objects which are themselves metaphysically necessary; at least more obvious than any negation offered thus far. Hence we’re within our rational right to affirm the possibility of God, from which it follows God must exist.






Factual Claim
(FC): Objective moral values and duties exist


Against Premise two, Con simply asks a trivial question, "Who says? Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, who?"



The answer is, it doesn't matter which religion affirms moral truths, for they would be true regardless over whether cuch groups affirmed them or not!
I also anticipated Con's last response in my opening round, he makes the age old flawed objection that belief in God isn't required to live moral lives,



"To claim that you must believe in a god to have objective, subjective or arbitrary morality is akin to saying, "You must believe there is a Santa Clause or else there are no presents" Show me where an atheist is any more amoral than theists and I will sell you ocean front property in Idaho for $5!"




... but that's NOT what I'm claiming! I even said,




"The issue before us isn’t whether we must believe in God to have moral lives, or if we can we formulate an ethics system without reference to God, and nor is the question can we recognize the existence of moral reality without reference to God? Moral ontology shouldn't be confused with our moral epistemology. I’m concerned with the former of these."



Then I even gave a diagram,




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




Practical Moral Argument

*Argument Extended




Conclusion


We've seen in this debate no good reasons for thinking premise one and two are less plausible given my support and refutation of Con's weak case against the moral argument. Furthermore, all of my arguments were either ignored or dropped or both. I therefore declare victory over Con.

God is therefore the source and very paradigm of moral goodness, and since we apprehend this source through moral experience, everyone of us can know God exists.
CIIReligion

Con

As the instigator has chosen to debate mostly in th comments and went completely off topic in his second round argument, we are arguing the Morality argument NOT evidence for God or the Ontological Argument. As this debate is a farce with ad hominem attacks, wheter indirectly from both sides, I declare this debate to be moot.

I may not supplied sources like my opponent and I may have given very little in the way of defense for my side, but I don't care which way you vote if you do.

I do ask that you do not vote for either of us and let this farce end where it is. I am forfeiting and will accept defeat if warranted.

Last, I want to be able to debate on here in the proper way and not in the comments section or in forums where the instigator prefers.

Again, I would ask that no one vote on this debate at all.
Debate Round No. 2
Apeiron

Pro

Remarks

Con pleads with the voters that this is a farce. But the comedy is on his end. The moral argument stands. He says he doesn't' care if you vote or not then says not to vote twice... which should we do? I think the decision is clear. Vote Pro since Con surrendered.



Theoretical Moral Argument

Arguments extended




Practical Moral Argument

Argument extended




Conclusion


Con forgets that this is DDO, debates take place in both the comments section (but mostly trash talk ;-) as well as in the forums and the debates... I'm glad I'm the one to welcome Con to this world of fire- he was thrown to the wolves and lost.
CIIReligion

Con

As I have forfeited this debate, I guess the only thing i can do is just point out that Pro has not been her more than a month and calls himself an expert and knows exactly what DDO represents and how it works.

Seeing as how he has only had one debate and it is still in the voting period with a 3 point margin, I guess we can all say he is the top contender here on DDO.

I will lose this debate and I don't care. Vot for him, because he made a better arguement, don't vote for him because he asked you to. Pro thinks he is all that and a bag of chips, just like WLC and that is not ad hom, that is factual observation.

So in conclusion, my morality to leave this debate is objective, but there is no God who influenced it. I made this moral decision for myself. There is no proof of an god(s) so how can there be one to create morals? Logical fallacy on the part of the individual who came up with these lame arguments that defeat themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
Apeiron

Pro

Remarks

We worked stuff out in the comments, we're cool now. Also I've noticed I have somewhat of a cult following on here now- But I don't think I know everything there is to know. I'm genuinely open to changing my views (as I've done in the past, just ask some of my friends).



Theoretical Moral Argument

Arguments extended




Practical Moral Argument

Argument extended




Conclusion


Con's choice to leave this debate has no moral content. I showed proof for God from the argument from morality, both theoretical and practical proofs, plus the ontological argument and the conceptualist argument. None of which were refuted.

Lastly, the theist doesn't believe God influences moral oughts, only that we apprehend a realim of objective oughts. And it's legitimate to ask where the ontological (not epistemological) foundation comes from with such objectivity... this is where the debate centers. I know more good atheists than some theists, but that's not relevant.
CIIReligion

Con

What Aperion has said is true and there was quite a bit of confusion and misinformation on my part. As for my decision to forfeit, who is to say it is not a moral decision. Looking back on the circumstances and the apparent lack of knowledge on my part of Pro, I would say it was a moral decision for me to end this debate the way I did.

As far as the Ontalogical and Practical Moral Arguments are concerned, they are only used by theists to prove the existence of God, but do nothing to actually prove that morals come from God or were influenced by Gods. There is actually no way of knowing how morals were developed. Theists say it has to do with the bible and God's word that makes it so, others claim it is just common sense, like I do. The logical mind will always lead you to the truth when you have evidence in front of you, unfortunately WORDS are not good evidence as they will change to fit the surrounding worldview. If science constantly changes from the evidence found and provided, why does religion not? Because they are stuck in ignorance. Now I am not saying that everyone who believes is ignorant, I am just saying, they would rather have a simple answer and move on with their life than to hear the truth and deal with it in it's complexity. Same thing with morals. People would rather have an imaginary being tell them what is moral and what isn't, more than they would like to think and figure it out for themselves.

I may not be a good debater, because I think with a simple mind and talk in layman's terms. But I will give it a shot in the next debate. You can't get better if you don't keep trying. (That doesn't mean I am wrong in quiting this debate though) LOL
Debate Round No. 4
Apeiron

Pro

Remarks

For all I know the forfeit was actually a moral choice- I can't claim to know the inner workings of Con, point granted.



Theoretical Moral Argument

Voters please recall the justification I gave above for thinking that objective moral values and duties are ontologically grounded in a maximally great being if they exist.



Also recall that moral epistemology isn't relevant here, but rather moral ontology. We can be ignorant of how we gradually discovered moral truths without undermining the truth value of such values and duties. And if we gradually discover morality, and not invent it, then morals are in fact objective- regardless of how we apprehend them. I agree that moral facts are common sense.



The claim that religion should change with the viccitudes of science is true in some respects, but rational truths are not emirical truths. And religious truths founded on rationalism, if they are true, they're always and ever true. But in the same respect a theist can be open to follow the changing evidence wherever it leads. This is what Anselm meant when he said, "ours is a faith seeking understanding." Likewise Pascal says, "God has given us evidence sufficiently clear to convince those with an open heart, but sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts are closed."





Practical Moral Argument

Argument extended




Conclusion

Alas, God can be known internally, so that those who don't have the resources to discover God by purely intellectual means can still have knowledge by aquaintance of him (as opposed to mere knowledge by description). I found this true in my life, and so I'm convinced that I have a reasonable faith. But ultimately we shouldn't let the evidnece for God to so distract us from cultivating an eternal relationship with him, the maximal great reality.
CIIReligion

Con

If god is internal and only can be felt through personal means, then it is a biological manifestation of the mind. As with eye witness testimonies, very few can be validated as truth. How many people were found guilty just off of eye witness accounts only and out of those, how many were innocent?

http://apps.americanbar.org...

Because of this, how are we to take the word of a theist who claims to have eye witness testimony to anything in their religious views?

That being said, it is logical to presume that morality is a concept developed over time through evolution of the human species. In the past where it was moral acceptable to stone your wife for adultery, it is not morally acceptable today. Same thing with slavery and killing your first born. If a God created objective morals in the past, how come they have changed in the more than 6000 years the Juedeo Christian God has been around?

Morality is man made as is God. Morality has been around before man created god and it is sure to be around after it's death and with many new changes to what it is and how it is perceived.

As for the conclusion, it doesn't matter since I already forfeited, but the Pro did not come up with a conclusion for his Morality argument, only for his proof of god tangent. Sorry, but if you still want to vote, I propose I get atleast a little credit for continuing till the end and actually staying on topic. :P
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
I know, I was mocking my opponent with this as an inside joke. The logic was completely fallacious as you say, but the argument still scared him into avoiding it...
Posted by YouShallKnow 3 years ago
YouShallKnow
>>1) If objective moral values and duties don"t exist, then God doesn"t exist (NC)

2) Objective moral values and duties exist (FC)

3) Therefore God exists<<

Sir Apeiron, your argument here is fallacious!hehe.. The falsity of the antecedent of a valid conditional, does not necessarily imply the negation of it's consequent right? But surely, you didn't meant it. What you want to say in premise 1 is:

"If God does not exist, then objective moral values & duties do not exist."

Like what you did here (http://www.debate.org...) right?hehe.. So just quibbling!;'b
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
And...

BAM!!!

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
Yeah just label it "Morality" ... since that would be cool
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I'm thinking of making a forum topic to discuss this, as I'm not sure any single debate would handle it; as someone who's made exactly 1 forum post (and it was a "I don't know how to do X on the website" post, so therefore dumb for this purpose), you guys who've been here longer have thoughts as to whether it's a good idea?
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@Apeiron:

"...if morals are subjective or unreal, then they're merely by-products of evolution,"
And you never really established why that is. Do you mean by-products of reason, which you feel is a by-product of evolution?

"If we gradually invent morality rather than discover it, then it's subjective, not objective."
If we say that God created morals, then they are subjective (to god). Further, did we "discover" the laws of physics? Of logic? Or did we invent them? Most morality is predicated on premises, from which the morality of circumstances flows logically.

"And on a naturalistic paradigm, I see no reason for thinking that moral ought isn't self-derived, and therefore subjective."
And I see no reason for thinking, on a theistic paradigm, that moral ought isn't self-derived, and therefore subjective. In the first place, the criteria for judging god's definition of "ought" is subjective (hence the many religions), and in the second, shifting the burden of defining "ought" to god does not solve the reasoning behind "ought" any more than shifting the first cause to god solves the problem of first cause. Perhaps the subjective element is removed TO GOD, but it is not removed entirely.
Posted by CIIReligion 3 years ago
CIIReligion
After reading the comments in the votes, I am learning a lot. I don't take offense to anything said, because I agree with most of it and I will take it as constructive criticism and grow from it. This will help me become a better debater.

I know I will lose, but I can't wait to see what other comments come in from the voting! This is exciting!!!! :)
Posted by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
This misses out on my point though. I said that if morals are subjective or unreal, then they're merely by-products of evolution, and the herd mentality and also the same goes for reasoning. If we gradually invent morality rather than discover it, then it's subjective, not objective.

In the same respect I also said that the question before us isn't if we can we formulate an ethics system without reference to God, and nor is the question can we recognize the existence of moral reality without reference to God. Moral ontology shouldn't be confused with our moral epistemology.

Meaning how we come to know morals isn't the question, it's rather what is the ontological foundation for them if they exist concretely.

And on a naturalistic paradigm, I see no reason for thinking that moral ought isn't self-derived, and therefore subjective.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
It's ipse dixit because you don't actually give reasons that morals come from evolution. You jus tgive reasons that speciesism is wrong.

And the is-ought problem was something Hume pointed out to prevent people from holding unstated assumptions. Reason can get to what "ought" to be, if one addresses the assumptions as to why such a thing ought to be. Hume took issue with the unstated assumptions that were being held, and was pointing out that you need to something to get from IS to OUGHT.

I contend that reason, and logic, can get one to a system of morals. But one must start from the beginning, and reach each conclusion by following the trail.

http://www.philosophybro.com...
Posted by CIIReligion 3 years ago
CIIReligion
You OUGHT not to think about IFs, which is what OUGHT IS.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dale.G 3 years ago
Dale.G
ApeironCIIReligionTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: the reason why i am voting for Pro is because Con have forfeited this debate meaning Pro should win this debate go Pro
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
ApeironCIIReligionTied
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: Can dropped most of the significant issues in the debate, and those that he didn't he lost anyway. this was no contest, Pro dominated here.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
ApeironCIIReligionTied
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 put minimal effort into his arguments, tried to call off the debate and because of the comments section (why would the debate be called off because of that?) Pro had points that went un-refuted. Conduct goes to Pro, for Con's laziness in debating. Arguments go to pro for dropped points, lack of effort in each round, and improper debate methods being implemented.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
ApeironCIIReligionTied
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: This wasn't much of a contest. After making a half-hearted attempt to address Pro's arguments, Con more or less gave up arguing. So arguments to Pro. I also gave conduct to Pro for Con's bad attitude, calling the debate a farce, giving up, and complaining about whatever went on in the comment section. Sources to Pro because Pro provided more relevant sources than Con.