The Instigator
AGluttonousAscetic
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Skynet
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

There is no objective basis for 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 2 votes the winner is...
AGluttonousAscetic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 74941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

AGluttonousAscetic

Pro

My position is that there is not an objective basis for morality; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source.

For this debate, the term "objective" will have the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

Since this topic could have a potentially wide range of discussion surrounding it, this debate will focus on only one aspect: killing another person. In addition to narrowing the focus to one aspect, I will frame the debate in the form of a specific scenario. My hope is that limiting the scope and framing the debate will provide ease and clarity and aid in a greater understanding of this topic.

The scenario is as follows:

I live completely alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person.

How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island.

The island and the surrounding ocean provide a wide variety of resources and I am able to use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning theses resources into things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter.

Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the available resources to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment.

I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself.

One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man. Due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way and I do not perceive any kind of physical threat or danger from this man.

I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life as I did before the man washed up on the beach.

My argument is that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source.

The burden of proof is on the Contender to provide a sustainable argument(s) that demonstrates that killing the man was objectively either moral or immoral.

The debate will consist of three rounds. Please provide your opening arguments in Round 1; Round 2 will be for rebuttals; and Round 3 will be for rebuttals and conclusions.

Thank you for your participation.
Skynet

Con

I will be arguing that "you" did the wrong thing on that beach that day by objective moral standards, and objective moral standards exist.

There was a second island in another place, at a different time. How the people got there is irrelevant, and like the first person, they have made the best of what they have. One day a group of people from another island found them. They returned with a war party, killed anyone who resisted, rounded up the survivors into a group of huts and burned most of them to death. Children, women, the elderly. Most exterminated. Some they brought back as captives to torture for sport and eat, as has been their tradition.

I ask the voters: If the solitary person on the first island had witnessed the events, what would their reaction have been, even though they had not been brought up as we have? Even if they knew they were completely safe from the attackers. If they responded with sorrow, maybe plagued with nightmares later, shouting "NO" anxiously as they watched, unable to look away, or unable to watch, would that be a normal human reaction?

If the person responded with emotional detachment, or glee, wouldn't this person be classified as disturbed? Wouldn't you, and any sensible person consider them a threat to others? Would you feel safe with that person around children? Would you feel safe turning your back on them while you slept?

If the dwellers of either of my island populations found the solitary island dweller in their midst, would they feel safe knowing what this person was capable of doing without remorse? They haven't been "corrupted" by Western values. Still, we know how this detached murderer is watched carefully in any society, if tolerated at all, because they are morally warped, and every person with common sense recognizes that.

We see a common morality against murder throughout the world. Tolerance of random, remorseless killers is seldom accepted. Even if the violence is taught as right, and the people are brainwashed into believing that is the way things should be, objective morality always shows up, as we can see among a tribe of Ecuadorian Indians and in the DPRK's prison camp system:

http://articles.latimes.com...
http://www.colinharbinson.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Even if people don't know of a different system, (isolated NK, isolated tribe) we have examples of people fleeing and recognizing the "normal" actions of that society as wrong. This is recognized objective morality, not attached to any culture, pervasive in the human experience, and "in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."

Objective morality exists.
Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
AGluttonousAscetic

Pro

Con's position, rather than demonstrating that there is an objective basis for morality, supports Pro's position that morality is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source and there is no objective basis for morality.

Con starts by providing a second scenario where one group of people commit acts that he (and perhaps most people) finds offensive and asks what would be the normal human reaction. Nowhere does Con explain why the acts of killing is immoral, rather Con attempts to avoid the discussion by appealing to the reader's emotions. Making a statement such as, "Look at this awful thing. Doesn't it make you upset? It must be wrong!" does not explain why an act is immoral (nor would an opposite statement explain why an act is moral) it is just an opinion and not objective. Con needs to objectively explain why the act of killing is immoral.

Con states that we see a common morality against murder throughout the world and implies that because of this there is objective morality. I reject this statement as an argument that objective reality exists for two reasons. First, the application of the term "murder" to the act of killing someone moves the discussion away from the objective and becomes subjective. In the scenarios, both Pro's and Con's, the only thing that can be objectively stated is that one man (or group of men) killed another man (or group of men), anything beyond the statement of facts becomes subjective. Con can claim that the act of killing the man on the beach was murder. That would be his opinion and only an opinion as there could be other perceptions by other observers since one man's murder is another man's self-defense is another man's patriotic duty, etc. This brings me to the second reason. Just because an opinion, thought, or idea is shared throughout the world does not mean that that opinion, thought, or idea is objective, it just means that it is shared. I will point out that for a large portion of human history it was thought throughout the world that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited around it. Just because this was a shared opinion throughout the world did not make it true or make it objective. To follow Con's logic that something is moral if it is thought to be so throughout the world, then if torturing people for sport and eating them (or anything else that one considers immoral) was thought throughout the world to be moral, then it would be moral. If morality can change based on people's opinions, even the opinions of a lot of people, then morality is not objective. Con needs to demonstrate that objective morality exists with something other than subjective opinions, thoughts, and ideas even if those opinions, thoughts, and ideas are widely held.

Con states that "objective morality always shows up" and points to examples of Ecuadorian Indians and DPRK's prison camp system. Again, this argument does not prove that morality is objective. All these examples do is highlight that different people have different opinions as to what is moral, e.g. the former prison guard that denounces what he saw in the prison camp may think that the acts he witnessed are immoral, but the guards who stay and commit the acts clearly think (based on the fact that they stay and commit the acts) that those same acts are moral. Opinions, even opinions about morality, are not objective.

Con has not provided sustainable arguments that demonstrate that killing the man on the beach was objectively either moral or immoral or that objective morality exists. Pro is not swayed by Con's emotional appeal that morality is objective or by the opinions of others that may say that morality is objective. It is still Pro's position that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source.
Skynet

Con

Pro says that if torture were considered moral by most people it would be moral. This is subjective morality, but it doesn't take into account the fact that if morality was truly objective, EVERYONE COULD think torture was OK, and it would still be objectively immoral. Objective morality would not require a democratic vote to be true, because it has reality independent of the minds of humanity. Less than that, if objective morality (or any other objective element of reality) exists, it does not require that humans are aware or heed it's existence to be real. I can say with certainty there are physical things that exist in this universe that no human is yet aware of, but that does not mean they don't objectively exist. The DPRK prison guards would not have to acknowledge that something is or isn't so for it to be so or not so. They might believe from propaganda that the US has an earthquake generator or their leader controls the weather, or that Nazis fled to Mars. That does not make it so. Objective morality does not preclude delusions, misunderstandings, or warped minds.

Right and wrong are not physical realities, but concepts. Concepts are real, like ideas, attitudes, civic pride, inspiration, etc. But are moral concepts a universal force in humanity? In my examples, we saw a prison guard who was taught to harm, and taught and convinced it was good to kill his prisoners. He initially believed it to be so, and despite is lack of contact with cultures with conflicting moral codes, he came to the conclusion on his own that what he was doing was wrong. This was a conviction independent of culture, common to most of humanity, that suddenly appeared in the mind of one man, despite his isolation from other cultures.

Pro attempts to make murder and all other forms of homicide a gray area. They are not. The distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing have been recognized in most of human history, in one way or another. While warfare, self-defense, and punishment for capital crimes are most often in one category, random killing, premeditated killing for personal gain or pleasure are most often in another. Even in cultures that are very averse to war, frown on killing in self defense, and outlaw execution, the other category is still held up as wrong, too: There is still an aversion to the taking of human life. On the other side of the spectrum, I can't cite a culture where all items in both categories are all A-OK in the society at large. At the minimum, we can see evidence for an objective moral against the taking of human life in some form or another.

In defense of my appeal to voter's emotion: If we are dealing with an objective reality that exists regardless of the mind, but is evident to reasonable observers, regardless of culture, we would tend to see a negative emotional reaction of some kind in humans to killing or a killer. If you really wouldn't be disturbed at witnessing a massacre of innocent people, you may want to vote Pro. On the other hand, if you wouldn't be disturbed by that, but realize that that is because you are a little warped, you may want to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
AGluttonousAscetic

Pro

I agree with Con's statement: "...if morality was truly objective, EVERYONE COULD think torture was OK, and it would still be objectively immoral." In fact, I made this argument in Round 2 to rebut Con's statement from Round 1 that we see a common morality against murder throughout the world. Con restated my argument and, again, has provided no arguments that demonstrate that morality is truly objective.

After stating that right and wrong are not physical realities but are concepts, Con then asks, "... are moral concepts a universal force in humanity?" Con offers as proof the example of one prison guard who at first believed one thing and then changed his mind. How is an example of one man proof of a universal force let alone proof that morality is objective? If anything, the fact that the prison guard believed one thing was moral and then believed that it was immoral, further demonstrates the subjective nature of morality. If an act can be moral one day and immoral the next day and then moral again the day after that, it is not objective but subjective. If Con is attempting to demonstrate that the prison guard in the example somehow discovered objective morality instead of simply changing his mind based on his individual beliefs, opinions, or preferences, then Con needs to provide a better and more comprehensive explanation detailing how the guard discovered objective morality and that the guard actually discovered objective morality.

Con then states that there is evidence for an objective moral against the taking of human life in some form or another because "The distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing have been recognized in most of human history, in one way or another." This is simply a restatement of Con's argument from Round 1 without any further arguments that demonstrate that morality is objective. I rejected this argument previously and I reject it now. While I agree that humans have, and do, attached different labels to the act of killing and have considered the act of killing labeled one way to be different from the act of killing labeled another way, this does not demonstrate that morality is objective. In fact, Con argues against this explanation of objective morality when Con stated, "Objective morality would not require a democratic vote to be true, because it has reality independent of the minds of humanity." So, even if all humans throughout history and throughout the world decided, via democratic vote or otherwise, that one form of killing was immoral and another was moral, that decision would not be objective. Con needs to provide an argument other than "morality is objective because everyone thinks that it is" in order to demonstrate that morality is objective.

Finally, Con once again, it appears, tries to convince the reader that morality is objective by making an emotional appeal. Con seems to forget that Con stated that objective morality "...has reality independent of the minds of humanity" so even if a reader was swayed by emotion (something not independent of the minds of humanity) it does not demonstrate that morality is objective. Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant. Implying that someone who does not agree with you, i.e. does not vote the way you think they should, is a "little warped" is not a proper debating tactic and should not be used.

In conclusion, my argument is still that there is no objective basis for morality and that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source. I reject Con arguments for the reasons given in Rounds 2 and 3 and contend that Con has not provided a sustainable argument(s) that demonstrates that killing the man was objectively either moral or immoral and therefore has not met the burden of proof.
Skynet

Con

"Nowhere does Con explain why the acts of killing is immoral, rather Con attempts to avoid the discussion by appealing to the reader's emotions. Making a statement such as, "Look at this awful thing. Doesn't it make you upset? It must be wrong!""

"Con needs to demonstrate that objective morality exists with something other than subjective opinions, thoughts, and ideas even if those opinions, thoughts, and ideas are widely held."

"Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant. Implying that someone who does not agree with you, i.e. does not vote the way you think they should, is a "little warped" is not a proper debating tactic and should not be used."

Keep in mind, audience, we can't be too clinical here. If we were aliens studying humanity and their ethics, could we ignore human emotional reaction to immoral acts? But we're not aliens, we're human, so is studying the emotional reactions of ourselves out of bounds? No, it's necessary. And morality often takes it's form and power in conscience, which affects emotions, thoughts, and then opinions. We can't discount the areas of human experience where the personal force of morality would appear. That's like arguing we can't look in the sea for live fish.

Repugnant? Sounds like a moral judgement to me. One based on some kind of debating rules? Would those rules be based on more basic morality, like fairness and seeking the truth? Hmm...

Now does an objective morality exist? Yes. We see a common morality against the taking of human life in one form or another throughout history and the world. We even see it appear out of nowhere in people isolated from other cultures. If morality is just an opinion, why, in a culture that reveres following orders and respect for authority (Korea), would one isolated man come to a similar conclusion to the majority of humanity? Why are rules constantly made to protect life? If there were no objective morality against murder, you would expect the trajectory of laws regarding human life to deviate wildly from we consider the norm. But even if a whole people group is warped, someone's life is always protected by law, even if it's just the oligarchy.

I didn't get into WHY objective morality exists, I don't see it as necessary at this moment. If something exists, that can be recognized, even if we haven't established why.

Morality: Not just like, my opinion man.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AGluttonousAscetic 2 years ago
AGluttonousAscetic
Skynet

I did not voice my opinion about your arguments to the voters, unless you believe that since I addressed your ad hominem attack instead of ignoring it I was voicing my opinion to the voters. I never made any statements such as "Con used an ad hominem attack so vote Pro" or anything like it. In fact, nowhere in the entire debate did I make any kind of appeal for anyone to vote at all or to vote for one side or the other or vote in a specific way. And, as I pointed out in my last comment, I did not use my opinion of your action as part of my argument as nowhere in the debate did I write that Con's use of an ad hominem attack proves that objective morality does not exist or anything like it.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Skynet
I'm not really concerned with my ranking anymore. I just find one part of your argument perplexing. What purpose in this debate did voicing your opinion about my arguments to the voters serve? How did your opinion of my actions serve to defend your position that objective morals don't exist? If your distaste for my argument didn't relate to anything outside your own opinion, why did you address it directly to the voters? Could it be because what I did was ...wrong?
Posted by AGluttonousAscetic 2 years ago
AGluttonousAscetic
Part 2

Further, I did not, despite your claim, use your repugnant action as part of my argument. Nowhere did I say that Con's use of an ad hominem attack proves that objective morality does not exist. I stated, "Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant. Implying that someone who does not agree with you, i.e. does not vote the way you think they should, is a "little warped" is not a proper debating tactic and should not be used."
You ask, "Now if my actions were morally repugnant, but morality is ONLY opinion, and opinion has no merit in a factual debate, how was it right, logically or otherwise, that you gained a point in voting on conduct, considering you are Pro in this debate?"

First, I never stated that your actions were "morally repugnant"; you are simply making statement contrary to the facts in order to make your point. Second, I agree that morality is "ONLY opinion". Third, you simply state that opinion has no merit in a factual debate but provide no evidence that this statement is correct as if you want me to accept this statement as true just because you wrote it. If you think, or feel, that opinion has no merit in a factual debate, then you probably think, or feel, that it was not right that I gained a point in the voting. Of course, if you think, or feel, that opinion has merit in a factual debate, then you probably think, or feel, that it was right that I gained a point in the voting. Since I never claimed that your actions were morally repugnant nor did I use your ad hominem attack to prove or further my claim that objective morality does not exist nor I did not vote in this debate and I cannot control how anyone else chooses to vote, your question does not apply to me and you will need to pose your question to those who did vote. However, there is no proof that objective morality exists regardless of how anyone voted and regardless of his or her reasons for voting.
Posted by AGluttonousAscetic 2 years ago
AGluttonousAscetic
Skynet,

Part 1

If you still believe that there is an objective basis for morality, then you and I are not looking in the same direction, nearly or otherwise. I claim that there is no objective basis for morality and have yet to read any argument, let alone your argument, that will convince me otherwise.

Your claim that the classification of actions as moral or immoral has been too consistent through history and distance to be just personal preference does not provide a convincing argument that morality is objective. At best, that argument demonstrates that humans can think along similar lines but that does not mean that that thinking is objective or even correct. As I pointed out in the debate, the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth was consistent through most of human history but it did not mean that the Sun orbited the Earth.

You ask, "What affects your conscience?" How does this demonstrate objective morality? It may affect my conscience in a negative way to see someone executed or it may affect my conscience in a positive way to see the same person executed. It would depend on my point of view, my beliefs, the culture I was raised in, my psychological makeup, and many other factors. Because my conscience may or may not be affected in some way does not demonstrate that morality is objective.

You claim that my conscience was affected by your repugnant action. However, in my comment I stated that I was not appealing to moral authority nor was I stating that your repugnant action was moral or immoral or anything else. If it is your interpretation that my conscience was affected, then that is your interpretation and not a sign of objective morality. But let assume for a moment that I did find your ad hominem attack to be immoral. Just because I thought your ad hominem attack was immoral does not demonstrate that it was immoral, it just means that I thought it was immoral for whatever reasons I decided it was immoral.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Skynet
I think we are nearly looking the same direction now.

While you defined objective in the debate, we never defined morality. Let me:
I don't think emotions can be traced back to objective morality: I think emotional reactions can be traced back to actions that fall on the moral or immoral side, and the classification of actions as moral or immoral has been too consistent through history and distance for the moral/immoral classification to be just be a personal preference. There is too much correlation to merely dismiss it. Morality is not a "thing" even as much as emotions: It is a classification system for actions. Of course emotional reactions won't be traced back to a classification system. But the classification system exists, and it can be discovered by looking at your own, and your fellow person's natural instincts. What affects your conscience? In the debate, your conscience was offended by my repugnant action. You attached a moral weight to what I did, and used it as part of your argument to gain yourself about 15 percent of your winning points. Now if my actions were morally repugnant, but morality is ONLY opinion, and opinion has no merit in a factual debate, how was it right, logically or otherwise, that you gained a point in voting on conduct, considering you are Pro in this debate?
Posted by AGluttonousAscetic 2 years ago
AGluttonousAscetic
Skynet,

I did not state that emotions are hard to analyze. I asked how do you know that that the emotional affects you are experiencing are caused by objective morality and not by something else. If you think that you can "fairly definitively" trace the causes of your emotions to objective morality, please tell me how because I would be interested in learning.

As for your question, the basis of my statement that one of your arguments was repugnant was, as I stated in the debate, my opinion. My complete sentence was, "Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant." I was not appealing to moral authority nor was I stating that your debating tactic was moral or immoral or anything else. I stated that it was my opinion that your insinuation that anyone who did not agree with you was a "little warped" was ad hominem and repugnant. If it is your opinion that calling someone who doesn't agree with you a little warped is fine, then that is your opinion. But it is my opinion, that it is repugnant.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Skynet
I wanted to see how well that argument held up in the debate. I would approach it totally differently if I debated the subject again. I think you are mostly right, that emotions are too subjective to use to make an absolute moral judgement.

However, I disagree with some of your second paragraph: I think emotions can be traced fairly definitively to their causes, and are not as hard to analyze as you are saying.

But please tell me, on what basis did you say one of my arguments in the debate was "repugnant?" Weren't you appealing to moral authority to do that?
Posted by AGluttonousAscetic 2 years ago
AGluttonousAscetic
When you state that objective morality would be revealed to us by our conscience, on what do you base that assumption? Do you "feel" that it is correct? Do your emotions tell you that this is correct? What if I "feel" differently than you do? Which one of us is correct if we both feel the opposite is true? The same goes for morality. To go back to the island scenario I used for the debate, if your emotions tell you that it was immoral to kill the man on the beach and my emotions tell me that it was moral to kill the man on the beach, which one of us is correct? How do you tell other than, "I feel it" or "He is a little warped so I am right" or something of that sort?

Further, you state that we know when our conscience is "acting up" because it "affects our emotions" and that objective morality "shows up" with emotional affects. How do you know this? Is this something that you feel? How can you tell that the emotional affects you are experiencing are caused by objective morality "showing up" and not caused by something you ate, or something that you did not eat, or by drinking too much, or by not drinking enough, or the lack of sunlight, or too much sunlight, or the heat, or the cold, or some other physiological or psychological aspect that is affecting your emotions? To go back to the island scenario I used for the debate, how do you know that it is objective morality that is telling you that killing the man on the beach is immoral and not just your stomach telling you not to eat that much again?

I do not accept how you feel as proof or evidence of anything other than that is how you feel (and it does not matter how many other people feel the same way). If you feel that objective morality exists, then that is proof or evidence of how you feel not that objective morality exists.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Skynet
Voting seems to be mostly over, so I want to talk about what most see as my conduct and appealing to emotion. If objective morality exists, how would it be revealed to us? Our conscience. How do we know our conscience is acting up? It affects our emotions. If you're going to study morality in humans, as I said in the debate, we can't be too clinical: Morality in humans is the subject, and while objective morality doesn't have an emotional basis, that is how it shows up, with emotional affects.
Posted by saphirescar 2 years ago
saphirescar
Con used ad hominem in rounds 1 and 2 by trying to get readers on an emotional basis. Both sides had very good spelling and grammar. Argument points go to Pro as Con showed examples of subjective morality, further proving Pro's argument. Both sides used examples in their arguments.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
AGluttonousAsceticSkynetTied
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: Con fails to understand that if morality is objective then *everybody must* believe in that same objective moral as good. A majority consensus is not enough, so long as there is one person that believes differently, morality is subjective. Since it's very evident that there is no consensus on *any* moral values as Pro points out, Con's only real hope is to demonstrate *why* certain objective morals are "good", in other words, he needed to explain why it's good for a reason entirely independent of human input. However it seems Con has no intention of doing this, as he states in R3 "I didn't get into WHY objective morality exists, I don't see it as necessary at this moment. If something exists, that can be recognized, even if we haven't established why.". But as Pro demonstrated, we haven't recognized *any* objective morals existing. Without any objective basis to establish morality, Con has no right to claim any one action someone performs is objectively moral or immoral.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
AGluttonousAsceticSkynetTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented examples that appealed to emotion rather than stick to the example provided by Pro. Con's remark about voting at the end of R2 does reek of ad hominem / poisoning the well fallacy. Conduct to Pro. Spelling and Grammar was even. Pro presented clear arguments, while Con failed to prove that objective morality exists; his examples showed subjective morality which was pointed out by Pro. Arguments to Pro, as the resolution was held. Con cited the only sources (examples) in R2.