The Instigator
lliwill
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Moroni23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

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 3 votes the winner is...
lliwill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,036 times Debate No: 15237
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

lliwill

Pro

Because I'm not entirely sure how this debate works, I will let my opponent go first, to show me how this should work. Good luck to my opponent.
Moroni23

Con

This debate is quite simple,

There is definitely a universal good or bad. No matter what religion you're in, no matter if you are theist, or not, you have things that are good, and things that are bad. Murder is bad. Donating to charity, good. You have things that are good for society, and things that are bad for society, you have things good for your body, and bad for your body.

I guess this debate will start off by pro defining exactly what you'd like to debate?
Debate Round No. 1
lliwill

Pro

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific in what I was saying.

If you are to look from every possible perspective, there is always a good side to everything, as well as a bad side. To address what my opponent earlier said: "Murder is bad." Murder may be bad for the person being killed, but that's one less person on an extremely overpopulated earth. Or "Donating to charity, good." One downside to that would be that the same money wouldn't have gone to a possibly better cause.

I look forward to the rebuttal, I hope everything is clear.
Moroni23

Con

I'm going to clear things up by posting two simple definitions.

Good- –adjective 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
Bad- –adjective 1. not good in any manner or degree.

By looking at these two definitions, there is absolutely a clear line between good and bad. In an nonreligious point of view, there is good and bad in regards to law. Robbing a bank, bad. Going to school, good. Robbing a bank is bad, because by definition, it is 'not good in any manner or degree'. Going to school is good, because by definition, 'morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious; a good man.'

In a religious point of view, i will agree that the line between good and evil has been tremendously distorted. 300 years ago, what was once absolutely bad, is now the normal. There is an explanation for this phenomenon, God has explained that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So why then was it unbelievably horrid to sleep out of wedlock 300 years ago, but today if you are a virgin by the ago of 40 they make a movie out of it. The answer is this, Satan, is a master deceiver. He slowly threw out time has been clouding up that clear and definite line between good and evil, making it seem like it is one of the same. Like there is no definition between good and evil. God himself has explained "The Lord cannot look upon sin with the less degree of allowance." That definite line between good and evil is still there, but just as a fly fisherman, deceives his fish by pretending to be food. Satan has deceived the world by pretending there is no line between good and evil.

Steven Michael Anderson

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. Hebrews 13:8
4. http://lds.org...
5. http://scripturalphraseguide.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lliwill

Pro

I would like to start by saying that those definitions may be in their own respect completely solid, but the way people use those definitions to define other things is very skewed. To go back to what my opponent said about Robbing a bank: The robbing of a bank may be bad for the people who run the bank, or who have accounts at the bank, because they lose money. In that sense, the definition of bad is clearly in use. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the robber, the robber would gain a lot of wealth from this endeavor. Thus, good and bad viewpoints can both come from something that may appear to be bad, such as a bank robbery.

Also, for a future note, I would like to try to keep religion out of this, mainly because your religion is not the defining laws of what's good or bad, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure why religion was brought into this. Religion just offers another lens of what's good or bad, thus justifying my point even more. From a religious viewpoint, sleeping with another person out of wedlock is considered bad, from what I understand. But from the viewpoint of a teenager who isn't religious, sleeping with another person before marriage is considered normal, at least to most. In this sense, one action can be viewed differently by two different groups of people in two different ways, thus nothing is universally good or bad.
Moroni23

Con

This debate is getting to repetitive, and i frankly am losing interest, however i don't see how somebody can agree to two different definitions, and still try and claim they are the same. There is a definition for good, there is a definition for bad. The bank robber, in the eyes of the law, it was bad, in the eyes of the robber, it was good. Depending on who you are good and bad may be different, however there is still a distinctive, clear, and obvious line between good and evil.
Debate Round No. 3
lliwill

Pro

I've been trying to explain this to you, but it seems like you may not be understanding what I'm trying to say. In the eyes of the law, yes, bank robbing is bad. But, in the eyes of the robber, bank robbing is good. Neither of those two things alone or together are universal. One thing is not universal, everything is universal. You need to have a unanimous opinion from every possible viewpoint of a given situation for that situation to be universally good or bad.
Moroni23

Con

I'm going to go ahead and break down this entire debate by using the title. ‘Nothing is universally good or bad.'

Universal- adjective: used or understood by all.

What pro is purposing then is that nobody can understand what good is, and nobody can understand what bad is. ‘Nothing is understood by all good or bad.' I am simply arguing just the opposite. Pro is correct as to say that the bank robber will receive good from a situation as the bank will see the situation as bad. My argument however is not that, but simply everybody does understand good and bad. Good and bad are universal. You yourself pro, have your own ideas as to what is good and bad. You can distinctively deceiver between the two. I myself have my own views and I can distinctively deceiver between the two, all of the readers of this debate, can for the most part distinctively deceiver between good and bad. Good and bad are universal, good and bad are ‘used or understood by all.'

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
I know man... you won. I didn't really understand what i was getting myself into so my arguments were kind of.. desperate :p.
Posted by Sojourner 6 years ago
Sojourner
This was a universally bad debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by reddj2 6 years ago
reddj2
lliwillMoroni23Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro-made better argument
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
lliwillMoroni23Tied
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 could not refute subjective morality.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
lliwillMoroni23Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments made little sense at some points, he made too many baseless claims nad had little in the way of warrants.