The Instigator
bitterherbs
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

There is no right or wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,011 times Debate No: 41213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (93)
Votes (8)

 

bitterherbs

Pro

I don't believe in right or wrong. I think it would make for an interesting argument so lets have at it.
I don't have to care about anything. I do care about myself. I happen to care about some people. But this does not mean I have to care about the poor or the down trodden. In fact, I think a life lived for others is a life wasted. If everyone lived for other people we would all be living for nothing.
philochristos

Con

I accept.

Pro has the burden of proving that there is no right or wrong. My burden is to refute his arguments. I will not be attempting to prove that there is a right or wrong.

So far, Pro has only reported autobiography. None of it has any bearing on whether there is a right or wrong, so I'm not sure what his intention was with that. I'll wait for his arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
bitterherbs

Pro

Strange I was hoping for a reason to be moral, because amorality needs a morality to reject. Here it goes anyways, and because you didn't make an argument for morality I will argue against the altruistic brand.

I hold that morality is something that people made up, and that I (or you do not need to conform to it). I do not of course assert the absurd argument that there is no concept of write or wrong, but rather I hold that these concepts are merely an interpretation of the world. There is no such thing as what is really wrong or what is really right, but only what one person thinks is wrong or write. That is if they judge the world in that way at all! I am not going to throw a bunch of quotes at you, but Nietzsche makes this point the best. He claims that right and wrong only came about as concepts during the slave revolt in morality. The old tables of good and bad, able and unable, were flipped on their head. The able man is now the evildoer in the wrong, and the unable man is now the saint.

Many unable people may need this valuation of right and wrong to get through their day, but I grant them no weight. They are like the Caloric theory. They are concepts without anything behind them.
You probably find this clich", but I would also like to propose Hume's Is ought dilemma. That is you can never know what you should do based only on the facts about a situation. You must have a value not being hurt before someone can convince you that you shouldn't touch fire.

I know that all of this sounds rather cruel. Sorry.
philochristos

Con

Pro hasn't given me much to work with. He states and explains his point of view, but he doesn't offer any arguments in favor of it. He cites Niezsche as agreeing with him, but doesn't make it out as an argument from authority, so that's not really an argument either. The closest he comes to an argument is when he explains David Hume's is/ought dilemma. He claims that nothing about a situation can, by itself, give you a right or wrong. Rather, you must have a value already in place before you will see the rightness or wrongness of any action. But Pro doesn't tell us how this works out as an argument against right and wrong.

So there's really just nothing for me to respond to here. Pro hasn't offered any arguments for his point of view, so he hasn't met his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
bitterherbs

Pro

Well the neg has refused to debate anything. I proposed 2 reasons why there is no right or wrong. If you didn't want to debate than you shouldn't have accepted. If you think that my arguments don't prove that right and wrong are not real things but simply valuations of the world, then you should say why. The best I can do is to respond to the commenter that said there is no way to show this. Of course there is, in fact I don't see how anyone could prove that right and wrong have any form of objective meaning. (note when I say right and wrong I mean Immoral and moral not correct and incorrect).

If you chose to debate me now there would be no point. You have already ruined the debate by refusing to engage me on any level. The mere saying that someone hasn't met the burden of proof is not how you show that they haven't you have to run through the arguments they make and show how each doesn't prove anything. Also I made it clear that my view is a negation of morality. In the absence of a positive moral truth their is in affect no morality. I argued that their is no such positive moral truth. if ~p is the statement that there is no morality, and p is the statement that there is a morality. Then a rejection of p is the acceptance of ~p if you want it in logical terms. I of course do not think there is a way to prove that there is no objective morality, because it is a concept that literally means that someone prefers something. People may think there is some absoluteness to their preference, but until they can prove this absoluteness it is safe to assume they are speaking from opinion. This applies to any opinion. If someone says red is the worst color for a car, then they must give you some reason for believing them. Eg cops pull over red cars more often than they do any other color.

I hope someone else will take me up on this debate, because you have been quite a bore.
philochristos

Con

Pro claims that he made two arguments showing that there is no right or wrong, so I went back and read his post. I cannot for the life of me see that he made any argument at all. There are three paragraphs in his opening.

In the first paragraph, he complained that I was not going to assume the burden of proving that there is a right and wrong. Then he said he'd argue against altruistic morality.

In the second paragraph, he merely explained what his point of view was. He gave no argument for it.

In the third paragraph, he continued to explain his point of view. He came close to making an argument when he brought up David Hume, but he made no argument.

I pointed all these things out in the last round. I was not ignoring Pro. I was simply pointing out that he had made no arguments for his point of view, so there was nothing for me to respond to.

In this last round, Pro points out that in the absense of a moral truth, there is no morality. Well, of course not! But that's a tautology, not an argument. Again, he's just stating his position. He doesn't think there's a moral truth; therefore, there is no right or wrong. That's not an argument. That's a tautology. He hasn't shown that there is no moral truth.

Strangely, Pro admits that he can't prove there is no moral truth. He said, "I of course do not think there is a way to prove that there is no objective morality," but that's what his burden of proof is in this debate. If he's going to come right out and admit that he can't bear his burden of proof, then might as well have just conceded the debate from the beginning or not initiated it at all.

Pro again comes close to making an argument in this round when he says that "until they can prove this absoluteness it is safe to assume they are speaking from opinion." Perhaps what he means is that if a person fails to prove that there is a right and wrong, we should assume there is not. And since I haven't bothered to prove there is a right or wrong, the conclusion we should draw is that there is no right and wrong.

If this is an argument, it's obviously fallacious one. How does it follow that because I refuse to prove there is a right and wrong that there therefore isn't one? It doesn't follow at all.

I suspect Pro is just trying to shift the burden of proof here. He wanted me to assume the burden of proving there is a right and wrong so that all he'd have to do is refute my arguments. But given the fact that he initiated this debate as Pro with the resolution being that there is no right and wrong, and given the fact that he did not stipulate that his opponent must share the burden of proof, the burden of proof in this debate was entirely on him. He refused to meet his burden of proof. I had nothing to disprove since he made no arguments in support of the resolution.

It is unfortunate that Pro would respond with vitriole in calling me a bore. He should rather have made some arguments and given me something to respond to. I'm disappointed as well.
Debate Round No. 3
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Anyway, yes. Good and evil are just concepts. Our way of judging the actions of others. For some strange reason humanity believes everyone has the same morals and purpose that we do. So if we consider something bad, we judge the actions as bad. We seldom see our own indiscretions that others consider bad. Our morals are similar in many aspects to societal norms. But the differences define us. We need to remember that all men/women, have their own set of morals. Therefore we can't judge their actions. So yes. Good and evil exist. But only in our mind, and only for our own actions. Hope that clears it up. I'll check in later to read your mind. Lol

TRUTH (IS) = NO JUDGEMENT OF OTHERS
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Well you could just ask a question. that's what these forums are about. don't just put your statement out there and expect someone to answer what's in your head. Very few others can read minds.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Because I'm genuinely curious. Sarcasm is not my default tone, and it's hilarious when people assume that it is.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Why comment? Go put someting more relevant to take its place.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Why are people still paying attention to this? It's old and it's not even a real debate. It's using up space on the main page. Been there what, a month and a half? More?
Posted by CodyNiskanen 1 year ago
CodyNiskanen
Hello
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
bye
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
in debate these blunder cost a lot.
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
one more blunder. who told u dragon don't exist. man i am wasting time with stupid.
comodo dragon.
u haven't seen him ever?
Posted by makhdoom5 1 year ago
makhdoom5
now*
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by jesusfreak22 3 years ago
jesusfreak22
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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: See comments; also, Pro should have cited his sources. Debates are based on facts, not opinions. You may insert your opinions, ONLY if you have logical facts with proof to back them up.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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: Funnily enough I agree with Rational Thinker.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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: Pro essentially conceded when he said "I of course do not think there is a way to prove that there is no objective morality". This is basically saying "there is no way that I can meet my burden of proof", as Pro has to prove that there is no real right or wrong in context. This is a pretty clear win for philochristos, how is this so close?
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made no real argument to back up their point of view.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I completely agree with Con's last round analysis. The fact of the matter is that Pro's rounds were autobiographical, and usually took the form of "I believe that...", "I hold that..". Of course, these are just statements about his psychology and don't have any bearing on the resolution. If the resolution stated "I believe there is no right or wrong", then perhaps it would matter! Pro talks about the beliefs of Hume and Nietzsche. Unfortunately, there isn't any argument here either. He's just stating what they thought as if this was a debate about the history of moral philosophy rather than *philosophy*. There isn't any argument about why they were right. Given this, Pro didn't make any attempts at arguing for the resolution. and in some places tried to switch the BoP onto Con. Con's case was short, but it wasn't gratuitously short, and made the point well. Pro was also slightly degrading towards Con at the end Arguments and conduct Con.
Vote Placed by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a good debate. Shame. CON gets spelling/grammar and conduct. Neither used sources. My opinion regarding BoP is that in this case it rests on CON, not PRO. This is the only reason I have given 'arguments' to PRO. As CON suggested, there weren't really any arguments. That being id (and this influences the 'conduct' vote also) this was not set up very well by the challenger, and I can imagine that many would mistakenly assume the BoP was on PRO. PRO was essentially looking for a morality to attack, didn't receive it and then got all pissy about it. Both seem capable of a far more valuable discussion, maybe the lines should be drawn a little clearer and the debate be re-ran.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
bitterherbsphilochristosTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really used sources. PRO mentioned some but didn't integrate them well. PRO got too dismissive in the final round - conduct goes to CON. Because of the nature of the resolution, it was not PRO'S BoP but a shared one. PRO somewhat provided one while CON ignored the issue entirely by hiding behind an idea that there were no arguments to refute and never making arguments of his own. Perhaps the resolution should have been more subjective, qualified with "I Believe There is..." or something similar, but the arguments clarified this, and CON did not attack the distinction. Arguments go to PRO.