The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 61937
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)




This is the fifth Devil's Advocate I have done within the series.
Rules are tweaked a bit from previous times, please read entire round one before accepting

-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)
-The debate cannot be a one-round debate
-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10
-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued
-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating (with the exception of troll debates)
-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater (in other words, debates named "my opponent will contradict himself")
-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 2 votes on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less
-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable
-My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments
-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D
-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence, or the legalization of gay marriage, or whether or not communism is effective/will work. I already did those three topics.

Because I keep on winning I will make this uber-challenging for me. How? To accept this debate you must have a higher elo than 3500, unless you are on the below LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. If you accept without my permission and you have <3500 elo (and you're not on the LIST OF EXCEPTIONS), then you accept an automatic lost. If you are on the LIST OF EXCEPTIONS then you can accept without any consequences, unless of course you break the rules.

-ArcTimes (Let's duel!)
-Ajabi (Good luck bro! :3)
-n7 (The nigh-unbeated....bring it on)
-DynamicDuoDebaters (You guys are lookin' fine and dandy!)
-Debatability (You want me...You get me!)


Thank you for this debate 9spaceking. The debate motion that I have chosen is: This House Believes In Absolute Morality. I am Con, and 9spaceking is Proposition. This means that 9space has the complete burden of proof to show that morality is absolute, and objective. The debate can be found here, it was one of my first, and worst:

1. Morality: the set of ideal codes and ethics which directly lead to the summum bonum (highest good).
2. Objective: absolute, transcendent of space, time and number; same for all; categorical.

I ALSO ADD ONE RULE: No trolling, or any other intellectual dishonestly like deconstruction semantics allowed.

I wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Oh no, it's Ajabi.

Ah, at least we can say we agreed and put this as our debate for the Tier Tournament! I wish him luck within this debate and tournament.I hope the third time is a charm and I finally win against Ajabi. Or maybe 5th time's a charm and Ajabi becomes the first person to beat me down within this series. We'll see.

Morality is absolute and objective for the reasons below...

1. It is determinable via ultitarianism

Ultitarianism is the moral ethical system that bases actions based on their harms verses benefits, and that if the benefits outweigh the harm, then this action will be considered "moral". This is easily supported, as for the good of others, even if one recieves harms, there will be more net benefits and thus we can determine morality just by this one same category for everything.

2. It is absolute because it is set in stone as an equation.

My opponent will probably mention how because ultitarianism can fluctuate, the same action performed on different people have different moral values and thus aren't objective. However, he is wrong. In fact, because the actions have a certain set value upon them, it becomes and absolute "equation" due to how the moral or immoral actions work out. We can in fact even "measure" certain morality values based on how harmful or helpful they are.For example, here's a scenario:-You save an innocent man's life.(If you save an innocent man, with no further bad consequences, then it is objectively moral. Objective morality=1)-You save an innocent man's life, and you buy him ice cream. (Even better, Objective morality=2)-The ice cream turns out to be poisonous. (Although you mean him good, the ice cream harms him and your point that meant to help him is deducted from you, and you're backtracked. Objective morality=1)-You cannot find the antidote in time and the ice cream kills the man. (As the consequence if buying poisonous ice cream, it kills him. However, due to your original goodness, you still have some morality points left for you, because you meant no harm and you really didn't want to kill him. Objective morality=0.5)-However, if you had bought poisonous ice cream on purpose instead of accidentally, it would not be understandable, and thus you have an objective morality of zero, because saving the man's life and killing him equal out, 0+1-1=0. As you can see here it makes sense and now this man has a lack of morality within him and everyone will in general despice him and think him crazy for going through so much effort to "Earn a morality point" only to purposefully lose it. Even when in total, my story ended up with a man with zero morality points, he was still considered "bad" by society, so we know you must have a certain amount of points to be "good". Of course, little actions build up and count too. The point system may be enlarged for the realistic effect, I was only making an example with an easy scenario. For example, in reality, buying the non-poisonous ice cream to help your friend may be 100 points, while saving lives is actually worth 10,000 points. And of course, the harms are counted too. While the ice cream may cure the heat and taste delicious, it may have fat in it that collides with your friends' diet, explaining why it's only 100 points in contrast to the 10,000 points from saving lives.And obviously, even these absolute values can shift, but they can only shift some, of course. If the ice cream was improved more points could be given to it, and if the life wasn't worth saving, then the points could be deducted. But the basics are there, more are added as benefits are found and harms are made, points are deducted and subtracted, it is definitely clear what is good or bad.

3. We all have general ideas of what is "wrong"

My opponent will probably point out that specific actions change at time and the morality of those actions are not objective but rather subjective. I understand that, indeed, human sacrifices were made in the ancient times and of course they were considered "moral" by the native people, but if you think about it, there's added variables to the "Equation" I mentioned above. Those people who made sacrifices believed that it would help the Great Supreme Being above hold the world together, or even give them good luck. However, if this is not the case, which, it certainly isn't, since we don't sacrifice any more, of course it has negative morality points, just not to those people. It has negative morality points especially if nothing really happened and the people that were sacrificed were completely innocent. And of course, nobody can make the argument that killing the innocent is moral/good. In their arrogance, these ancient people suffered, and while in their heads they thought it "good", in reality they were just ignoring the fact that all of their sacrificial-of-the-innocent actions were immoral.

I hope Ajabi understands my arguments. I could understand zip-nada from his debate, so I had no choice but to seek out my own opinion.Good luck on your construction of arguments/rebuttals.


I thank Nye for this debate. The reason I accepted was because I actually like Nye's debating skills; I also find him very brave, I for one would never initiate such a challenge. The motion before the House is: This House Believes In Absolute Morality! Now I believe I should start of with some onus explanation. The onus rests entirely upon my opponent here, to show nothing less than []M which means necessarily morality is absolute. I have defined the terms needed below, I feel that no other term is needed.

I must say that my opponent's case sufficiently confuses me. I have, to tell the truth, no idea what he is saying for the most part of his argument. It seems that makes it rather hard for me to rebut what he hath said. As I am negating the resolution it is perfectly all right for me to attack Nye's arguments from multiple tiers. I will therefore both argue for moral nihilism, and even if such a thing exists such as moral and immoral, I will argue that it changes. Thereby I shall make use of the 'even-if' strategy so famous in parliamentary.

R1: Determinable From Utilitarianism:
This point seems strange to say the least, since utilitarianism is the most famous theory of moral relativism. My opponent some how claims that this theory leads to a form of categoricalism. This is most perplexing, to disprove this point I think I should simple post an example of Utilitarianism demonstrating moral relativism.

Let us imagine a scenario where one can preform either action X, or action Y. Let us suppose that action Y is on average worse than action X. According to Utilitarianism here action X is moral to do. Now let us suppose a scenario where one can do either action X or action Z. Let us say action Z has better productivity than action X, now it would be immoral to chose action X. This is in accordance to Utilitarianism the theory my opponent stated.

R2: Set In Stone:
To be honest I literally understand nothing of this argument: I mean it makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not see how the conclusion leads to absolute morality, and I cannot see any coherence. From what I can gather, Nye seems to argue for an objective quantification of actions. This is circular logic unless my opponent can prove the existence of a Being who can for all intents and purposes provide an objective quantification. As long as this is not provided it is either circular logic, or it is unproven.

Then it also remains if a person feeds an old man is this inherently moral? It seems my opponent agrees that if the ice cream is poisoned then the act is immoral, and if it is tasty it is moral or more moral. This mean moral relativism, therefore my opponent concedes.

R3: General Idea of Wrong:
My opponent has yet to prove this point. If he believes that the idea of virtue is a priori, then he must necessarily prove this. Also this argument seems beside the point because this does not mean that morality in itself is absolute, even if this argument is correct (something it is not) it just means that humans agree on what is moral.

In deontological logic we can say that I believe X, such that X is Universe or A(X). This still does not mean that X is P in nature. It just means A(X)>P. So while we may believe X is something, that does not make X that way.

The resolution collapses.
Debate Round No. 2


"Let us say action Z has better productivity than action X, now it would be immoral to chose action X."
If Z had more POSITIVE productivity then certainly it would be more moral to choose Z, and in this case, because you did not choose the more moral action, X is now worse off due to Z's awesomeness.

Set in Stone:
"It seems my opponent agrees that if the ice cream is poisoned then the act is immoral, and if it is tasty it is moral or more moral. This mean moral relativism, therefore my opponent concedes."
No no no, me agreeing to moral relativism does not mean absolute morals do not exist. In fact, relative morals and absolute morals can exist at the same exact time. You see, if everyone agrees that action X is relatively moral to action Y, then action X is absolutely moral to action Y because there is no dispute over it. Similarly, if I give the ice cream poisoned to the old man, it is absolutely immoral, but if it's tasty and has no poison in it, then it becomes objectively more moral. It is simply indesputable. My point here is that with the addition of moral and immoral facts, the ice cream becomes more tipped towards most sides. We learn more information about the ice cream, and the absolute objective morality changes over time. It's like how the mathematician learned that 1 is a whole number, now he learns 0 is a whole number. 0 is still objectively 0, none of its properties has changed, we just learned a new thing about it that changed our perspective on it, but that does not make 0 not 0.

"So while we may believe X is something, that does not make X that way."
Some times this is true, however, for morality it isn't. We get to decide what morality is, it is a human measurement. We believe that 100 centimeters make a meter, and that makes 100 centimeters equal one meter. Even if in reality the universe is so warped that 100 centimeters really isn't a meter, our measurements have made it thus that under our "normal circumstances", 100 centimeters equal one meter. Similarly, if most rational people believe something is definitely wrong, then I have managed to prove that there is indeed absolute morality. And of course, most rational people cannot definitely justify killing an innocent person. Therefore, with this proof and absolute morality logic crucial point held up, I proved that absolute morals do indeed exist.


It may be the morphine I was just given for my neuropathic pain syndrome, but your case does make very little sense. You have essentially conceded the entire debate. I should like to start off with some fundamental onus explanation. The burden of proof in this debate lies entirely with the Proposition, that being 9spaceking. It is his duty to show []X where X stands for the motion. One more thing, when a resolution says X, with X not being supposed as a noun, then X is taken as "all X".[1] It is therefore my opponent's burden to show that all morals are absolute.

I am extremely cut for time, since as I said, I was in extreme pain, and a bit delusional. I shall thereby not address each point, I can do so in the last round, rather give a summary of my opponent's argument, and then refute it. My opponent's argument rests on these premises:
1. There is no fundamental clash between moral relativism, and moral absolutism.
2. Morality is based on what people believe; people can believe in one universal truth.
3. There exists a moral ratio, which can decide moral absolutism.

With this my opponent has conceded these points (as he never discussed them later):
1. We have an inherent sense of right and wrong.
2. My argument that things can be amoral (hinted in my counters)
3. Determinable from Utilitarianism.

I have two things to say right now. Firstly how do any of these premises lead to moral absolutism. Since my opponent dropped C3, P1, and P3 fail. All they (attempt to) show is that moral absolutism, and moral relativism can both be true. In essence without C3, these two points are worthless. They argue besides the point.

My second statement asks whether any of you sincerely feel that 9space has justified the above mentioned beliefs. I say that he has lost this debate, because he conceded to moral relativism. He believes that morals can change in relation to opinions of man. Also he asserts relativism himself which defeats his case entirely.

As for P1 I think the refutation is self evident. If one is to say "Y is a moral truth regardless of any circumstances", one cannot say "Y is a moral truth because of opinion". These two cannot be resolved. It is useless to argue this point. If 9space says that some morals are absolute then why those morals? What makes those morals moral, and not others? Is there a quantifier to this? Yes, I just gish galloped. My opponent must answer all these questions.

As for P2, that supports moral relativism. In any case I find no compelling case for this proposition. Also lets say people agree that K is moral. Therefore K is an absolute moral, people change their opinions? Is K an absolute moral? Lets make a small paradox. Lets say K is a moral which asserts that K is not a moral. If K is not a moral truth, then K is correct and it is a moral truth, if not then K is wrong, which means K is right. Just putting that in there.

As for P3 my opponent gave no argument. The resolution then collapses miserably.

[1]Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler
Debate Round No. 3


-As a note, I have not conceded any arguments, and I will explain why.
-Relativisism does not defeat my case, morals can be absolute and still be relative to each other; I.E., again, within my equation, 5 and 2 are definitely positive, but one is more positive than another. Although they are relative to each other, even this relativity is absolute--there is exactly 3 between 5 and 2, like the morals. An absolute moral considered more moral than another absolute moral will always be a determinable exact amount more of absolutely concise morality. Killing the innocent, as stressed before, is the gravest crime of all time, and the basis for killing the innocent cannot be justified as moral without doing further absolutely moral things. This absolute immorality of killing the innocent can no way be rebutted; my opponent has failed time and time again.
My opponent tries creating a paradox with K being a moral asserting itself not being a moral. This is illogical, paradoxes are always standing in the center of morality and immorality, as they cannot be determined or have illogical solutions to them. Thus, my opponent's example only shows that absolute morals exist, since paradoxes are absolutely neutral. While killing your grandfather, the action itself may be considered immoral on the basis, with the addition of the neutralizing objectively neutral action of going back in time, you cannot say for sure whether going back in time to kill your grandfather is moral or immoral. Of course, your action and thinking of killing is obviously immoral, but the resulting consequence is still objectively neutral, because we have no idea if you succeeded and killed your grandfather and yourself, resulting in an objectively immoral consequence, or if you don't succeed because you managed to prevent yourself from killing your grandfather by killing your grandfather, which is technically moral in the basic sense because you are trying to prevent a murder. (The lack of immorality could be explained by the fact that you are stupid and don't know that, in your action of trying to prevent yourself from killing your grandpa, you kill your grandpa anyways). Therefore as shown in this paradox, as there are two different possibilities (or the universe crashing), which lead to two different (but absolute) values of morality, objective morality exists within the paradox; it is neutral, zero, and is neither moral or immoral.

My opponent tries to say that because I haven't rebutted the argument that morality is determinable from utilitarianism, my arguments collapse and fail. He is incorrect. It is because morality can be determined that it is objective. If Utilitarianism could not determine the morality of something, then morality is subjective because we can't determine if something is moral, immoral, or the neutral zone. However, because it is obvious if an action is moral or immoral, based on their harms and benefits, we can clearly draw a line in the middle and determine the absolute moral based on what harms and benefits it has. Again, with the killing of the innocent--my opponent has failed to rebut this, and I've shown at least one example of absolute morals.

-Killing of the innocent, with no further consequences, is immoral for obvious reasons, and is thus objectively immoral
-I gave at least one example of an absolute/objective moral/immorality

This has been a hard debate, and my opponent's arguments were very strong, but I believed he is wrong. I fulfilled my BoP, and I have won.



I guess this might be Nye's first victory over me, but I feel it should not. As the civil unrest in my country caused my internet to be cut temporarily I cannot post anything. Even this I write with the greatest of hardship. I believe I still win because Nye was arguing a truism, he broke the law of non-contradiction; never proved his arguments, and argued besides the point. I apologise profusely for this, and while I am dismayed that I cannot post an argument, I hope the voters can sympathise with me.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Pro argues that utilitarianism decides what's moral and that there seems to be a universal conception of what's right. I think the best way to argue against the first argument is by pointing out utilitarianism is a combination of a value theory with ethics. As Julia Markovits said, one can accept utilitarianism in a value theory way (we should maximize happiness) while rejecting its ethics (maximizing happiness is inherently moral). It also seems Pro's second argument is a mind projection fallacy.

However, Con does present a great argument, that it's incoherent. Utilitarianism has no absolute morals, everything is relative. While making an argument against the idea that if everyone believes something then it's objective.

Pro's rebuttal said moral absolutism and relativism are compatible. But this seems wrong by definition. The definition of absolute is
"In Philosophy
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
"good and evil are presented as absolutes"

It seems Pro is thinking about true moral facts other than absolute moral facts

In Utilitarianism no moral value is universally valid and it always stands in relation to other things. Pro responded to the next objection stating it is different with morals and compared morals to being such a thing like length.

Con talked about how incompatible absolutism and relativism is. Pro must show []X, but conceding moral relativism rejects []X. Along with presenting a paradox which attempts to show morality exists apart from human opinion.

Pro said the value theory in utilitarianism is what's absolute. But this seems irrelevant, the debate is about the morals themselves, not about the moral absoluteness of the value theory. Pro's rebuttal to the paradox doesn't seem relevant. It seems Pro is trying to justify moral dilemma's under moral absolutism instead of answering the objection in question.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Overall, I am more convinced by Con's case. Pro is attempting to argue something which by definition cannot be argued for. The argument from human opinion doesn't seem to be convincing either. Morality exists apart from humans. I have to give arguments to Con here.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
I know, I was mostly actually just trying to confuse you to nowhere land XD
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
lol 9space you are improving.

This was a VERY hard resolution to argue.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
dang, it looks like you end yet another wonderous streak of me.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
will no one vote this?
Posted by debatability 3 years ago
Agh well ajab accepted; but I have a debate in mind where I can play devil's advocate so hopefully we can debate in the future.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 3 years ago
"-Debatability (You want me...You get me!)."

Gosh, have another admirer.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
Spaceking in all seriousness what's your obsession with wins/who beat who? It's kind of creepy and a really awful way of measuring ability
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
you have to choose a debate you won.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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: I don't think Pro's case ever got off the ground. I can buy that there's a level of absoluteness to utilitarianism, but unfortunately for Pro, he never argues that level. Instead, he gets caught up in the relative aspects, and then claims that widespread agreement on that relativity produces an absolute. Unfortunately for him, this is simply not the case, and his failure to meet the basic definition of absolute in evaluating utilitarianism as a system for evaluating morality leads me to vote Con.
Vote Placed by alyfish126 2 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro due to lack of conclusion from con. Arguments to con because pro failed to uphold burden of proof. Also, for utilitarianism, what is 'right' or 'wrong' is, well... relative... to the situation.