The Instigator
Dwint
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

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 8 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,690 times Debate No: 51228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (8)

 

Dwint

Con

Hello! This is the second debate is a series called "The usual arguments" where I take the most common arguments against atheism and try to debunk them.
In this debate, I will try to prove objective morality doesn't exist.

objective morality - the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true[1]

This debate is impossible to accept. Leave a comment if you would like to debate this topic.

Structure:
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: arguments
Round 3: rebuttals
Round 4: conclusion
[1]http://rationalwiki.org...
Wylted

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Dwint

Con

1) The origin of objective morality

Morality can only be objective if moral standards were decided by god or if moral standards were the result of evolution and we can't change them, because we are born with them, just like fear or rage.

Case I: divine morality

If the moral standards are dictated by a god, they should remain constant throughout time. god is supposed to be perfect, so any god-given rules should never change. For example, The 10 Commandments are the same after over 2000 years, because they are the rules God wants us to follow and they don't change over time. If moral standards are also a god-given set of rules, then they shouldn't change over time. If that was the came, our moral standards would be the same as they were 2000 years ago. Since our moral standards changed drastically, morality in relative and therefore can't be given by a supreme being.

Case II: evolution
In this case, morality is the result of evolution and is constant in every human, just like fear, rage, happiness etc. Looking at things from an evolutionary psychology perspective, other objective concepts, that cannot be change by every single individual's perception appeared as an adaptation. For example:
fear - made us be more careful, allowed us to survive longer, multiply more and eventually fear became objective and present in every human

Morality, on the other hand, serves no purpose. Doing what is morally right doesn't help an individual multiply more and it doesn't increase it's life expectancy, therefore there is no reason for morality to be attributed to evolution because according to natural selection, it's not a crucial factor when it comes to passing your genes. Something that doesn't help an individual live longer or reproduce more cannot become a key element of the species and can never become an objective part of their mind.
Humor is not objective, nor are we born with it. There is no reason for it to be a part of our mind, because it doesn't help us survive, so it is a subjective concept.

2) If it's widely accepted, it's doesn't mean it's objective

The reason why people consider morality objective is because today most people around the world share the same moral standards. This doesn't mean it is objective. We live in societies and we are influenced by them. Children learn about morality when they are still very young, from their parent. Almost all parents pass the same moral values to their children, because they all have those moral values from their parents and so on.
In addition, not everybody shares the same moral values. Morality in Europe and America is basically the same, but in Asian and African societies, moral standards are different and people act differently. Something that is considered immoral in European societies is perfectly normal in Asian societies[1]

3) Recent changes
The difference in moral standards works against god-given moral standards, but morality achieved through evolution can technically still exist. However, if morality in dependent of evolution (and therefore inherited), then it can only change over a few generations and only if it is vital for the survival of humans.
So, if morality was objective, slavery should still be considered moral everywhere in the world. There is no evolutionary reason for slavery to be considered immoral. Most Americans born in the 19th century believe slavery was moral as kinds but died thinking it was immoral.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wylted

Pro

I don't want to do this. I have a feeling this debate will be close and that I very well could lose strictly based on conduct points. However, life circumstances force me to forfeit this round.

Just to give my opponent a chance at rebuttals, before I actually post my argument, I will tell him what I'm arguing. I will be arguing for moral sense theory. I believe moral sense theory can prove objective morality.

I'm sorry con, for having to forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dwint

Con

I'm sorry you had to forfeit. You can post your arguments in round 3 and rebuttals in round 4 and I will not post anything in round 4 to keep everything equal.

So, moral sense theory claims morality in rooted in our emotions. Since I don't know my opponent's arguments, I will try to disprove the moral sense theory.

1) Emotions are not always objective
Happiness, sadness, love or compassion aren't objective at all. We all feel them, but for different reasons. Not everyone loves animals, some mothers love their children more than others, some feel no compassion for murderers and so on. Most emotions are not objective and the ones that are objective (fear, anger, anxiety) don't influence our morality. And even this emotions are not constant. Serial killers for example usually don't experience fear.
I think the moral sense theory explains morality very well, but I can't see how it proves that morality is objective. It's clear, I think, that compassion and love usually influence our moral views, but this emotions are not objective in the first place, so why would morality be objective?
The only objective moral value we have is murder, that is and has always been considered immoral. A single moral value doesn't make all morality objective, and even murder is sometimes considered moral. The execution of serial killers is considered moral by many, while in any other context they would think killing a person is immoral. As long as context can influence morality, morality can't be objective.
Animal rights are also a very complex topic where emotions are subjective. Some people love all animals, some people only love pets, some people feel nothing for animals and have no problem killing them (hunters), while some believe no animal should even be killed(mostly vegans and vegetarians) Take a look at the Denmark Dolphin Slaughter. Is it moral to kill them, even if it's for food?
There are many moral standards involving emotions on which people from the same culture can't agree.

2) Not all morality in influenced by emotions.
Sure, some moral values are influenced by love and compassion. However, when talking about prostitution or lying, emotions are not involved. Someone doesn't think prostitution is immoral because of his feelings. If murder is widely considered immoral because of love and compassion, prostitution is considered immoral because sex for money is not widely accepted. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about forced prostitution or sex slavery. I'm talking about prostitution as a job where women are doing it because they want or like to do it(also, I'm talking about legal prostitution, like in Amsterdam or Sydney ). Another example is pornography, that is widely considered immoral for no emotional reason. As long as nobody is forced to work is this domains, there are no emotions involved.
Lying also doesn't have anything to do with emotions and proves that morality is taught, because children are taught not to lie. They are constantly reminded at school and at home that lying is wrong, so they believe it. You don't tell the truth because you of your love or compassion, you tell the truth because you were taught it is the moral thing to do.

So, morality is not entirely dependent on emotions and even when it is, those emotions are not objective.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com...
Wylted

Pro

Introduction

Thank you Dwint for being so patient with me. Once again, I'm sorry for having to skip my previous round. I'm not going to prove all morality is objective. There is some moral views that can be considered subjective and others that are objective. What I'm here to discuss right now, is just the morals that can be considered objective. In this round I will address how moral sense theory proves that a set of objective morals, indeed exist.

Moral Sense Theory

Moral Sense Theory states that just like sight, taste, touch or smell, a sense of morals also exists. We can sense right or wrong just like we can sense different colors.

The objective moral code is altruistic in nature. There is a place with-in the code for rational self interest. This makes sense. If we don't show an interest in self preservation as individuals than we will fail as a society.

Actions aren't approved of based on selfish reasons. Therefore something else is in play. Moral ideas also seem to arise spontaneously and aren't consciously thought about. We just intuitively know what is right and wrong. The reason it arises spontaneously is because a rational thought isn't a part of deciding morals. We sense morals.

The Morals

The first thing you should know about moral sense is this;

"The moral sense is the source of justifying reasons but not exciting reasons" (Hutcheson).

This means that we justify are actions based on our interpretation of the deeper moral code. A person for gay marriage has the same moral code as one against gay marriage. It's only the interpretation and application of the same moral code that makes it appear as if their moral code is different.

Both guys believe marriage is special (The underlying moral code). What's different is one guy wants to protect the specialness by excluding some people. The other guy knows it's special and doesn't want to deny anyone the opportunity to participate in it. Just like 2 lawyers battling over the interpretation of the law. These 2 people fight over the interpretation and application of a deeper moral law.

The objective moral sense can be confirmed by looking at a few facts. For example. The moral sense approves of "The general calm desire of the happiness of others."(Hutcheson).

This is seperate and distinct from other moral passions, such as love and compassion.

Morals come from gut reactions it appears. When challenged people have a really hard time explaining why they are against something, such as harmless consensual incest between brother and sister.(Haidt 2001)

"Haidt's story appeals to evolution. He believes we are pre-programmed to respond to suffering with compassion, arrogance by subordinates with contempt, cheating with anger, and impurity with disgust, for example. These culturally fine-tuned affective responses are in turn distally explained by having been evolutionary "adaptations to long-standing threats and opportunities in social life" (Haidt 2012) "

http://plato.stanford.edu...

There are certain morals we all share and are objective there is just no way around it. We universally look at insubordination from subordinates with some contempt. We are disgusted by what we view as impure. We all think torturing a little baby for fun is wrong.

Why are Morals Objective

There is a few schools of thought here. I won't bother to mention them all. This could be a product of evolutionary group selection. Groups with altruistic members are more likely to survive than ones with selfish every man for himself types.

There is also a possibility that Jung's theory of a collective unconscious is true. The collective unconscious could hold these objective morals that we somehow sense.

Conclusion

I hope I've laid out my argument clearly enough for everyone to grasp the concept of a set of objective morals that we some how sense. I thank my opponent for his extreme patience. I will get into rebuttals and counter rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Dwint

Con

I will try to keep this short so my opponent will be able to post his rebuttals and counter rebuttals in a single round.

First of all, rational thought is actually used in deciding morals. Just look at abortion or the death penalty. They are constantly debated because you don't sense what is morally right. Rational thought has a very important role in deciding what is moral and what isn't.

As long as our actions are based on the interpretation of the moral code, then the moral code is not objective. The interpretation is itself the moral code. Thinking that marriage is special doesn't have anything to do with morality, it's just an opinion that differs from person to person. Not even thinking marriage is special is objective. Many believe marriage is not special, so even if it was part of a deeper moral code, it would still be subjective. Also, there is no deeper moral code. For example, murder is wrong is the interpretation of a deeper moral code ( since there are suicide bombers who believe murder is the best thing in the world) As long as there are 2 different interpretations, there should be a deeper, objective moral code. That would be that human life is special, which is again just an opinion that some people don't agree with.

Desire of the happiness of others is a very interesting topic, because we are educated in that way. Modern society as well as religion remind us we should all love each other everyday. We just accept this and mostly pretend we care about everyone, but we know this is not the case. How much do you care about a hobo? Do you wish happiness to a serial killer?

Since morality justifies one's beliefs, it is of course very hard to explain why that is your moral standard. Just like you use you taste in music to justify the bands you listen too, but you can't explain why you have that taste in music. Subjective morals are just as hard to justify as objective morals.

I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate. I really enjoyed it.
Wylted

Pro

Introduction

I ask the voters to pardon my writing style. I think if I talk to my opponent as if conversing with a friend is will help make my case easier to understand.

Body

"First of all, rational thought is actually used in deciding morals."


Not entirely true. There is a deeper simpler objective moral code, within us all. When deciding our morals for more complicated things, we use are ability of reason to decide if the morals line up with the objective moral code with-in us. You can see this when we debate the issues. Both sides are typically trying to show how their opinion lines up with the objective moral code easier. People for and against torture, are both trying to show how their opinion causes the least total harm. You can see how they're both appealing to the same moral code. In this instance "Do the least amount of harm to the group".

"Just look at abortion or the death penalty. They are constantly debated because you don't sense what is morally right. Rational thought has a very important role in deciding what is moral and what isn't."

These issues are more complicated. If you look at what people at doing. You can see when they debate those issues, they're really debating whose view falls in line with this objective moral code easier. They are either arguing that abortion and the death penalty cause less harm when legal or cause less harm when illegal. Really take a look and pay attention when people debate these issues. Both sides are arguing using the same moral assumptions. Nobody really steps in and says "your moral assumptions are wrong". No they argue against them.

"As long as our actions are based on the interpretation of the moral code, then the moral code is not objective."

It's definitely objective. Especially if we're using an interpretation of the same moral code. The fact that some people don't interpret and apply it correctly, in no way means it isn't objective. If the morality isn't objective, there really isn't anything to interpret.

" Thinking that marriage is special doesn't have anything to do with morality, it's just an opinion that differs from person to person. Not even thinking marriage is special is objective. Many believe marriage is not special, so even if it was part of a deeper moral code, it would still be subjective."

Everyone thinks marriage is special. Even the people who think it's an outdated and useless institution acknowledge it as special. You'll be hard pressed to find a guy who thinks it's ok to sleep with another man's wife. Even if that man does think the concept of marriage should be abolished.

" For example, murder is wrong is the interpretation of a deeper moral code ( since there are suicide bombers who believe murder is the best thing in the world) As long as there are 2 different interpretations, there should be a deeper, objective moral code. That would be that human life is special, which is again just an opinion that some people don't agree with."

Even terrorists think murder is wrong. Terrorists view themselves as at war. They believe themselves to be doing God's work. It really takes a lot of justification on their part, to come to the conclusion that what they're doing is right. It's not that killing another human is viewed as wrong. It's the unjustified killing of other humans, and terrorists believe they're justified. You won't find a person who thinks it's good to murder a baby, just for fun. If you do it's not a case of subjective morality. It's a case of needing a psychologist.

"Desire of the happiness of others is a very interesting topic, because we are educated in that way. Modern society as well as religion remind us we should all love each other everyday. We just accept this and mostly pretend we care about everyone, but we know this is not the case. How much do you care about a hobo? Do you wish happiness to a serial killer?"

A sense of justice is also part of the moral code. In the case of serial killers, we typically see them as sub-human. They have harmed the ability of the group to survive and need to be punished. As far as the hobo is concerned. I don't give a crap about him. He isn't in my wolf pack and not a threat to me. Even though I don't care about him. We both know from our shared objective morals that it's wrong for me to go over to him and take a leak on him.

"Since morality justifies one's beliefs, it is of course very hard to explain why that is your moral standard. Just like you use you taste in music to justify the bands you listen too, but you can't explain why you have that taste in music. Subjective morals are just as hard to justify as objective morals."

Your taste in music is a conditioned thing and isn't completely applicable to what we're debating. With that being said. Humans love music, and we all secretly tap our feet to some Justin Bieber music when nobody is watching.

My opponent's last statement seems to be conceding that some objective morals exist. We were never debating if all morals are objective. We were debating if an objective set of morals exist. My opponent implies that he agrees that at least some morals are objective.

Conclusion

We can sense this objective morality with our gut reactions. We might all apply and interpret parts of it differently, but that doesn't mean it's non existent. You can see when people debate issues they are appealing to this same unspoken moral code. I thank my opponent for this debate, and thank anyone reading for taking the time to do so.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Both sides essentially spent this debate speaking different languages. I wish that someone had taken the time to restate the definition from R1, because I think it got confused throughout the debate. Whether somethings is held as factually true or not doesn't necessarily mean that everyone holds to it - for example, people disagreed with the germ theory of disease, but that didn't change the fact that it was an objective truth. There's a difference between the words "objective" and "absolute."

There's also a question of what the burdens are in the debate, and each side is trying to assign themselves and their opponent burdens that neither side spends much time defending. From what I see of the resolution, I understand that Pro's burden is to show that objective morality exists, not that all morals are objective. As such, I only need to find an example of what is objectively moral within the debate.

I think the restricted response from Con in R4 is harming him substantially here. I understand that you were trying to be fair, but the responses from R3 essentially did nothing to help you. As such, any responses in R4 would have been the only responses to Pro's case, and the relative lack is problematic. You have to do more.

It doesn't help that the arguments from R2 are also non-responsive to his case. Even if you're right that a deity nor evolution could have provided a way for morals to exist objectively, Pro provides me an alternate source to work with that requires neither. I could see how Con's points would still apply if I made a few links for him, but as he does not explain, I can't apply much of the arguments from R2 or R3 to the case.

And so I'm left comparing Pro's R3 and R4 to a bit of Con's R1 and his R3, and there's simply not enough to win here, and in this, Con simply doesn't give enough warrants to support his point. I'm not finding Pro's arguments incredibly persuasive either, but they're the most applicable in the debate. Arguments go to
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
RFD:
R2 - Round 2 is unfortunately very one-sided, as Pro forfeited the round. However, I don't find Con's argument very convincing; also noticed multiple S&G errors. He argues if objective morality comes from God, it should remain constant throughout time, because God is perfect and thus his law is perfect. However, not all religions view God or gods as perfect or unchanging (take the ancient Greeks and Romans, for example). Con also argues evolution shows no basis for objective morality because doing the right thing doesn't help advance a species. This is a silly argument, as there are many examples of altruism in nature, and it can easily be argued morality aids evolution by ensuring a stable society. Con does make great points in two respects: just because something is widely practiced does not mean it is true, and that at least some moral aspects have changed over time. Pro forfeited the round.
R3: Con is disadvantaged here by having to refute something his opponent hasn't been able to argue yet, but this shows his impeccable conduct in this debate, going so far as to offering to forfeit round 4 to keep things even. I think Con makes a great argument by noting the moral sense theory doesn't actually prove morality is objective, it just explains morality. I think Con stumbles a bit by arguing that not all morality is rooted in emotion, however - his claims regarding prostitution bans and dislike of pornography being un-emotional is just plain silly, especially the latter, which is certainly an emotional topic in relationships. Pro's makes some good arguments, especially his contention that everyone's views are simply their interpretation of the moral code. However, none of this actually proves the code is true - Con already established that the existence of a moral code doesn't mean it is true, nor does wide acceptance of something. Pro spends much time establishing the code exists, but never establishes the code is based on objective truth.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
R4: In round 4 Con again takes the high road and shortens his case to give Pro more time to rebut. Thus his rebuttal suffers in terms of content, but he reinforces his case well. Pro's final argument is mainly spent rebutting this, and he does a good job of establishing his case - however, he simply does not prove that morality is objective.
Result: Overall, Con wins conduct and arguments, Pro wins S&G. Source points are given to neither as sources played little role in the debate. Good job to both sides, but Con gets the win here.
Posted by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
My RFD:

This is a very interesting debate. Conduct is a tie because both were respectful, etc. Spelling and grammar is a tie because both were fairly errorless. As for most convincing arguments, I gave it to Pro. The reason being is that his main argument refutes all of his opponent"s arguments. Basically, Pro is stating that objective morals exist - just how people apply them is different. For example, people think that babies shouldn"t suffer. Therefore, some are for abortion because they don"t want the kid to suffer a bad life, and some are against it because they don"t want babies to suffer pain of abortion. However, I was thinking of giving most convincing arguments to Con. The reason being is what Pro stated, "You won't find a person who thinks it's good to murder a baby, just for fun. If you do it's not a case of subjective morality. It's a case of needing a psychologist." (Round 4). The reason I didn"t completely give it to Con is that, under Pro"s argument"s logic, it could be the murderer"s execution of his objective morality. As hard and almost impossible it is to understand, it is plausible under Pro"s assumption. However, I was hesitant to give the vote to Pro because of that statement. I gave most reliable sources to Con however because he cited in three quarters of his rounds.
Posted by humanright2debate 3 years ago
humanright2debate
try to think what will happen if we remove all law, based on your moral judgments of everything. chaos
Posted by humanright2debate 3 years ago
humanright2debate
CON are using too much of his refute thought, based such as
Case I - our moral standards changed drastically
fail to give proof on claim?

case2 - There is no reason for morality to be a part of our mind, because it doesn't help us survive, so it is a subjective concept.
con are you a psychopath?

case 3-Morality, on the other hand, serves no purpose. Doing what is morally right doesn't help an individual multiply more and it doesn't increase it's life expectancy

Do you know social evolution is based on how cooperative human activities , a set of Morality law is fixed else people alike psychopath will go round shooting and killing .
psychopath have moral standards therefore they needed someone to teach them a standards .

Moral is not what you alone think its of, its based on nothing but true evidence, Objective morality are true in the law. its a set of law that everyone agree . if there no Objective morality law, u may be dead right now and not even know why. con is having confessed judgment on morality ,emotion,self-need . which is why there must be a Objective morality law to ensure the safety of human race, else we all will be wiped out by each others
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I agree
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
I think Con should complete round 4, as I don't think I can vote either way if he doesn't as this gives Pro an unfair advantage since Con didn't see a full argument to respond to in round 3, and therefore his effective 2 round debate is going to be weaker than a regular 2 round debate whilst Wytled's is going to be the same strength.

.... Because I think pro would like the challenge...
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I'd love to give you a detailed response, but it would harm my case. My argument pretty much resembles what C.S. Lewis argued in 'Mere Christianity'.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
@Wylted

Evolution morality is still subjective morality. What if after a few of generation, the concept of slavery being acceptable is wide spread? What if a few hundreds years earlier murder was acceptable? What if someone developed a different sense of morality? What is wrong about survival of the fittest?
So there is still no objective right or wrong.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
DwintWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a truly fascinating debate. I appreciated both sides' courtesy in this round. I therefore will not award conduct (despite Pro's ff), and I will not be scoring s/g as both were reasonably even here too. Pro's formatting, however, was far clearer and easier to follow. Ultimately, I am persuaded by two points. Firstly, Pro says: "Just like 2 lawyers battling over the interpretation of the law. These 2 people fight over the interpretation and application of a deeper moral law." This line of analysis was extraordinarily compelling, and I didn't feel it was ever fully debunked. Con's response was: "As long as our actions are based on the interpretation of the moral code, then the moral code is not objective." This is clearly faulty. Objective morality can exist even if humans have yet to fully understand or uncover it. Anyway, I found this sufficient to grant Pro arguments. Solid debate--plaudits to both contestants!
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
DwintWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD to come tomorrow, with an explanation for source points as well. This was an interesting read.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DwintWyltedTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. I am giving a conduct point to Con due to the forfeit, though I appreciate Pro's posting an apology rather than allowing the time to lapse.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
DwintWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
DwintWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
DwintWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: R2: Con shows human's moral standards changed, but didn't show it'd affect God's moral standards. Pro touched my heart so I won't dock his conduct point and Con posted in R4 after saying he wouldn't. R3: Pro says 2 conflicting interpretations of an objective law can be objective. This is a self-refuting statement. His only source didn't help his case, given I don't believe in "harmless incest." R4: Con seems to just expand on what I just said. Pro appears to be arguing in circles, presupposing the existence of an objective moral standard in order to prove it exists. His examples are bad; I disagree that "You'll be hard pressed to find a guy who thinks it's ok to sleep with another man's wife" and uses special pleading to defend a moral standard that allows murdering babies for fun. I don't think Con conceded any objective morals exist. I'm not giving argument points since the resolution was too vague.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
DwintWyltedTied
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: Many arguments that con brought forth were simply irrelevant. Showing examples of people's stances on moral issues can change doesn't disprove the existence of any objective morality. Con has the burden of proof to show why our intuitive knowledge of certain wrongs (like murder without cause) are atill subjective. Due to con's failure to uphold his burden of proof this debate goes to pro.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
DwintWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: There were some missed opportunities to engage in this debate. Con argued that if morals can change, then they're not objective. Pro didn't respond. Con also equated sense theory with emotivism, which Pro neglected to correct. I thought both of Con's points were fallacious, but Pro didn't respond to either one. Some of this debate just consisted of assertions and counter-assertions. Pro asserted that because people sense morality that morality is therefore objective. Con asserted that it wasn't. The good part of this debate was when Pro argued that there is a commonly agreed upon moral core, and that people merely disagree on interpretation, and Con countered that the interpretation IS the moral core, and Pro defended his argument by saying the interpretation has to be OF something, so the moral core can't be identical with the interpretation of it. Pro won on that last part, but since he ignored some of Con's arguments, I had to give arguments to Con. Conduct for the forfeit.