The Instigator
wiploc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Utilitarianism Is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,195 times Debate No: 19998
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

wiploc

Pro


Utilitarianism Is Good


I'm a utilitarian. What is goodness aside from making people happy? Why do we avoid murder and rape? Because they cause unhappiness. If you see a way to make someone else happy at little cost in happiness to yourself, it would be a good thing if you helped out. If you make someone unhappy without making someone else happy, you did a bad thing.


"The most happiness for the greatest number," is a slogan associated with utilitarianism. I'm not dogmatic, or even educated, about whether that is a good way to express utilitarianism's bottom line. It's just that I don't see any way to measure good/bad aside from the resulting happiness/unhappiness.


It seems to me that every other moral system must either derive from utilitarianism or be dismissible as irrelevant. Take Kant's morality as an example. His moral rule is that you can't lie unless you can recommend that everyone lie all the time. How does he justify this rule? He observes that if everyone lied all the time, more people would be unhappy. His system is based on utilitarianism. Else, what would be the point?


Imagine an Authoritarian system, in which obeying the state is the only virtue. If it didn't make people happy, what would be the point? If it made people unhappy, it would be bad.


Now take Christianity, a dual system: The rule is that you should obey god, but it is also held that doing so will increase happiness. So, if gods existed, and if it were true that obeying them increased happiness, Christianity could be a decent moral system.


Of course, I'm evaluating other moralities according to utilitarianism. The Authoritarian might say, "Does utilitarianism increase obedience to the state? If not, what is the point?" When we compare moralities like this, we have to evaluate their goals. Obedience to the state vs. people being happy, which is better? That's an esthetic judgment, an emotional appeal.


If you don't see the appeal of human happiness, you are a sociopath. To which, you will respond, "You say that like it's a bad thing?" Yes, this utilitarian answers, it is a bad thing.


So that's the bottom line. If you want people to be happy, you see the appeal of utilitarianism. If people get more utilitarian in their behavior, then more people will be happy. (Yes, I say that like it's a good thing.)



Criticisms of Utilitarianism:


These tend to be self-defeating by being themselves based on utilitarianism. For instance, anti-utilitarians say that utilitarians should be willing to harvest the organs of one innocent victim in order to save several lives. That sounds terrible. It does. But what exactly is wrong with it? It's wrong because it would make us unhappy to be subject to having our organs harvested, to not know whether our relatives will make it to dinner tonight if the organ harvesters are out. Nobody wants to live that way. It's un-utilitarian.


You could phrase the objection differently. You could say that the organ harvesters are wrong because they violate the rights of their victim. But why do we have rights? Because we are happier with rights. Otherwise, what would be the point?



Types of Utilitarianism:


Act utilitarianism bases behavior on specific circumstances. You could tell a lie if you believed that that specific lie would cause more happiness than unhappiness.


Rule utilitarianism doesn't trust those one-off evaluations. As a rule utilitarian, I would argue that people tempted to lie will fool themselves too often. They will rationalize that the lie will cause more happiness than unhappiness, even when that's not the case. So rule utilitarians make general rules. For instance, I'd say that lying tends to cause unhappiness, so it should be avoided, absent extraordinary circumstances, even in those cases in which you think it will work out for the best.


Desire utilitarianism may be the best version. According to this theory, you ought to desire things that tend to make people happy. So, you shouldn't want to lie. But you should want to save lives, so, in extraordinary circumstances like when lying can save lives, lying may be okay.



Conclusion:


That's my unsophisticated position. I don't know of any moral system that is better, that has more appeal, than utilitarianism. To the extent that other systems make people unhappy, they are bad. To the extent that they make people happy, they may be okay. The ultimate test of a moral system is whether it makes people happy. Otherwise, what would be the point?


Morality is how you ought to behave. If you know the difference between right and wrong, you ought to do right. But there is no way that something can be good unless it is good for something. That is, what can be good about an act that makes nobody happy? The ultimate basis of utilitarianism, increasing happiness, is a good appealing goal. To the extent that alternative moral systems don't share in this goal, there is no reason for us to go along with them. There is not ought to counter-utilitarian systems.



Rules of this Debate:



  • I'm Pro. I argue that utilitarianism is good. I really believe this.

  • Blackvoid is Con. He argues that utilitarianism is bad. He's fielding some interesting arguments.

  • Two rounds. 72 hour turns. One week of voting.

  • NO SCORE FOR SOURCES. I emphasize this because it got ignored wholesale in my last debate. Blackvoid and I have agreed that we can cite sources if we want to, but we are not to be voted points for sources. This debate is a discussion, a reasoning-together, a testing of our logic, not a contest of authorities. I repeat, therefore: DON'T VOTE US SCORE FOR SOURCES.


BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to Wiploc for starting this debate. I'll point out that this is for the final round of Weirdman's tournament.

I interpret the word "good" in the resolution to mean "morally righteous" (1). This is just to avoid semantical confusion.


Now to the arguments.


1. Inconsistency critique

There's several examples of Utilitarianism being used in similar moral dilemmas, but yield entirely different conclusions. For instance,

Examples of "good" Utilitarianism:

1. A trolley is coming to hit 5 people. You press a button which directs it into 1 person, saving the other 5.

2. A terrorist is going to use a bomb to blow up Washington DC, so you torture him for the deactivation code.

3. For no reason at all, a man is going to kill your entire family, so you kill him first.

Utilitarianism justifies these things, which seems fine. But change the wording of the scenarios, and the conclusions become completely different.

Examples of "bad" Utilitarianism:

1. Snatching a random person from the street to kill him and harvest his organs for 5 terminal patients. Pro would say at one point that no one would want to live in a world where this happens, but we can make this an isolated incident that no one will ever know about.

2. Grab a random person, subject him to highly dangerous medical experiments in order to advance our knowledge of human anatomy.

3. Force somebody to strip and run around naked, to amuse everyone who sees him and provide some good laughs.

In all of these scenarios, someone is being forcibly hurt, and someone is forcing the harm onto them. There's also a net benefit achieved in all these situations, yet common sense tells us that the first 3 examples are justified where the last 3 are not. Utilitarianism says all these actions are justified, but this shows inconsistency because its obvious that the moral rightness of the last three scenarios is questionable at best.


C2: Date rape critique

Utilitarianism says the actions that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number are morally correct. In that case, unnecessary violation of human rights becomes moral. For instance, Utilitarianism would justify use of the date-rape drug, as the rapist gains sexual pleasure, and the victim isn't even awake to experience it. There's a net gain of happiness, but clearly this is wrong.

Whats interesting is that this example can become paradoxically worse. Imagine if instead of 1 person carrying out the date rape, its a 5-man gang bang. In this case the net happiness produces is multiplied by five, but instinct tells us that this scenario is even WORSE than the former. What in the world...

This also applies to other situations where happiness is unfairly extracted. A psychopath who gains pleasure from abusing other people would be justified as long as his victims are sedated to not feel any pain. And necrophilia doesn't actually hurt anybody...


C3: Justice critique

Utilitarianism fails to account for whether the beneficiaries of happiness actually deserve it. For instance, Utilitarianism would kill one innocent person in order to save 5 serial killers. So long as the murderers wouldn't kill again, Utility would accept this. Not cool.

Flip the situation around. I'd say its justified to kill 2 Death Row inmates to save one innocent child. But Utilitarianism doesn't see it this way. It looks at mere numbers and makes a purely statistical decision, failing to take Justice into account.


C4: Consequence critique

Utilitarianism disregards the actual intent people have in pursuing an action. If I try to kill the president, but my attempt ends up inadvertently saving his life, Utilitarianism considers this a positive action. It doesn't account for the fact that my intent was evil, and that I actually meant to kill somebody. Similarly, if I meant to save the president's life, but end up killing him in the process, thats considered a universally bad action even though my intent was good.

Imagine if our justice system worked this way. All cases of second-degree murder would be punished with life in prison or worse, even though the death was purely accidental. When evaluating morality we must take into account the actual intent of our actions and not measure them purely by what end result they bring.


C5: Overpopulation critique

Utilitarianism says we have to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Under this logic, everyone should be forced to have 10 or more babies so that we can increase the amount of people in the world who can experience happiness. This would lead to a highly overpopulated world where everyone has no choice in whether they actually want kids or not. In this sense, Utilitarianism violated the principle of free will because it forces actions on us that we may not be willing to take.


C6: Donation critique

Under Utilitarianism, my opponent would be forced to donate all of his money and possessions to third world Africa. My opponent's money would save countless lives from starvation and increase the quality of life for even more, which outweighs the now penniless life Pro will have to live. Similarly, thousands of other people would be compelled to do the same thing, because a net benefit is achieved. But clearly my opponent doesn't want to do this, nor does anyone.



These six arguments are enough for now. Lets look at Pro's arguments.


Overview:


1. Consequentialism states that actions are good or bad based off whether their end result is good. Utilitarianism is a specific form of consequentialism; it defines what a good or bad result actually is. But for Utility to be morally correct, my opponent must first justify consequentialism. However, he never justifies why the end result of action should be the sole thing we look to when determining morality. Utility looks at whether the end result (happiness produced) is correct, but he never explains why we only look results and ignore intent. Thus he has not fully upheld his system of morality.

2. My opponent never explains why happiness itself is inherently good. In reality, happiness is just a series of chemicals passing through the brain in a specific pattern. Pro doesn't explain why chemical reactions are objectively moral. "Because it feels good" won't suffice as that merely appeals to subjective emotion. This is a huge flaw in his case, as happiness is what Utilitarianism is based upon, but its not upheld in Pro's constructive whatsoever.


"Utilitarianism Is Good"


My opponent's case mostly just appeals to emotion and begs the question, rather than using logical justifications. For instance, his opening paragraph states that helping people is good and not helping people is bad. However, this is just a blank assertion. This is true only if Utilitarianism is true, and as explained in the overview, pro really hasn't justified the tenets of Utility in the first place. Thus, this begs the question.

Pro also states that even Kant's morality might be based off Utilitarianism. Except, I'm not defending Kant's morality, I'm only criticizing Utility in this debate.

Pro also states a few times that the point of things like Christianity and Authoritarianism is to make people happy. Again, this isn't a justification.

1. The point of Christianity and Authoritarianism is to increase happiness
2. Therefore, Utilitarianism is good.

This is highly fallacious and is missing too many links to actually justify my opponent's moral system.



Finally, Pro says that if I don't see the appeal of happiness, I'm a sociopath. Actually, I do see the appeal of it, but thats different from proving it as objectively good. Remember, happiness is just a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Just because it makes us feel good doesn't mean it has objective worth. If he just assumes happiness is good because humans like it, thats another appeal to emotion.



"Types of Utilitarianism: "

My metaethical objections apply to all types of Utility my opponent's brings up.



I await my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 1
wiploc

Pro

Objectivity:

Con challenges me to prove that utilitarianism is "objectively good." I don't even know what that means. "Objective" is a slippery word often used for equivocation. I didn't undertake to prove anything about objectivity.

I see no difference between "good" and "objective good."

My point as a utilitarian is that morality based on promoting happiness at least gets you happiness. That's not a bad thing.

Is/Ought

Con asks me to show how I break the is/ought barrier. Can't do that. Nobody can do that. I never offered to do that. Other moral systems don't do that, so utilitarianism doesn't suffer by comparison.

On the other hand, since we're talking about morality, we're already on the ought side of the barrier. We're deciding how to be good, given that we already want to. If you don't want to be good, morality doesn't interest you. Sociopaths need not apply.

Of the moral systems available to those who already want to be good, utilitarianism is a nice workable system with appealing results. As I pointed out in my first post, the appeal of other systems is often an implicit reliance on utilitarianism. Who would espouse, say, virtue ethics without believing that it promotes happiness?

Ethics vs. Metaethics

If we were discussing ethics (as opposed to metaethics) we'd lay out our starting axioms, and then we'd work out the implications. And maybe we wouldn't even care whether those implications were appealing. Our discussion would be about logic, about things like, "Is this calculation right?"

But this discussion is about metaethics, about comparing one system of ethics to others. The appeal is to esthetics, not logic. So we ask things like, "Do you like happiness better than obeying orders?" The issue is taste.

Consider comparing tacos to tripe. The discussion consists of, "Look at this. Mmm. The aroma, delightful! Notice the mouth texture. Ah." There's no, "You should prefer tripe or you're making a logical mistake."

So, now, look at utilitarianism. It's about making people happy. Do we like happiness? Mmm, delicious!

If Con had wanted to have us savor another system for contrast, he could have put up, say, tormenting people forever in Hellfire. "Does that smell good, or what?" Ugh. Prefer happiness.

Consequentialism

Con says consequentialists would approve attempted murder that saves lives, and condemn attempted life-saving that costs lives. I know little of consequentialism, but, to the extent that Con's description of consequentialism is fair and accurate, I reject it. Intentions are important. Trying to hurt people is bad; trying to help them is good.

I don't see how consequentialism would serve as a guide to conduct. "Go and try to either help or hurt that person, depending on which will turn out to have the better result." Weird. I'm not defending that.

My utilitarianism is about intentions, about trying to help, about trying to make people happy.

Parade of the Horribles

Con says that if we adopt utilitarianism and try to make people happy, we will overpopulate; give up our freedom (what Con calls "free will"); give away all our money so we're penniless and miserable; snatch organs from random strangers; encourage psychopaths; humiliate people for our own amusement; abandon justice; and, once we're done gang raping our dates, screw corpses. He has interesting ideas about what causes happiness.

To utilitarians, those seem like bad things. They would make people unhappy, so we're against them. Utilitarianism is the morality we want. Smell the happiness, mmm.

Incidentally, Con agrees with me that those things are bad. But he hasn't offered any other test of badness. What's bad about them aside from the fact that they cause unhappiness? Con is implicitly trusting you to condemn organ snatching, date rape, and so on. But on what grounds would you do so aside from the fact that they make people unhappy? Con is implicitly trusting your utilitarian instincts.

1. Inconsistency critique

Con says utilitarianism has conflicting outcomes. But other systems share that problem. Christianity, for instance, has you turn the other cheek one minute, and stone your children to death the next. If I worked thru Con's example situations, he could just offer more, so working individual problems isn't what's wanted here.

Let's have an analogy: Economists are for prosperity. But some economists want to raise taxes to reach that goal, and others want to lower them. Some want more spending, others want less. So the science of economics has all sorts of "inconsistencies." That doesn't make economics bad.

But, despite the conflicts in execution, it's good to agree on the goal. You wouldn't want someone in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank if he was against prosperity, and you wouldn't want someone promoting morality with the goal of decreasing happiness.

The goal is important. It's the first thing to get right. As the goal of economics should be prosperity, so the goal of morality should be happiness. Else, what would be the point of either?


Conclusion

Utilitarianism is cool. It is a simple workable moral goal, that everybody except sociopaths can get behind. And sociopaths aren't in the morality game anyway.

To the extent that other moral systems conflict with utilitarianism (to the extent that they have unhappiness as a goal) they are bad systems. To the extent that they have no conflict with utilitarianism and incidentally increase happiness, they may be cool.

Con hasn't offered a competing moral system for utilitarianism to be compared to. (And this is the last round, so it's too late for him to do so now; I wouldn't be able to respond. Any argument he introduces in this round should be ignored.) So my job isn't to show that utilitarianism is better than some other system. Rather, I just have to show that it has some goodness: the resolution is, "Utilitarianism is good."

And I've shown that it is good. As long as we're pursuing the utilitarian goal of happiness, we aren't pursuing unhappiness. Pursuing happiness tends to increase happiness, which all but the unbalanced among us agree is a good thing.

Criticisms of utilitarianism tend to take the familiar form of inventing some unhappy situation and trying to blame it on utilitarian principles. Such criticisms are self-defeating because they implicitly rely on our utilitarian instincts. Without those instincts, we wouldn't recognize the badness of the described situations. For instance, gang raping your date is bad because it makes people unhappy. Injustice is bad because it makes people unhappy. Necrophilia is bad because … Hmm.

Well, consorting with cadavers does upset the relatives. To the extent that the excuse is that nobody will ever know you carried on with carrion, that rationalization relies on act utilitarianism, which I have disavowed. As a rule utilitarian, I say doing the dead is bad for this reason: If lots of people did it, then some of them would get caught, and net happiness would decrease. (Hmm, I disdain Kant, but that sounded almost Kantian.) Rule utilitarianism, therefore, forbids diddling the departed in any culture where that tends to give offense. (And if our society quits taking offense, well, then, buy condom futures.)

So, anyway, utilitarianism is good. It's better than wishing people you don't like into Hellfire. It's better than wanting to take orders from the state. It has no downside that I know of, and it tends to make the world happier. That's a good thing.

Vote Pro!

Notes and asides:

  • Remember not to vote us points for sources. We have agreed not to count points for sources. The rules of this debate forbid voting points for sources. No Points for Sources.
  • Thanks to DarkVoid for agreeing to this debate, and for the sterling performance he's putting in. He's already my favorite debate partner.
BlackVoid

Con

I'll start by thanking Wiploc for this interesting debate and representing his side. Also thanks to Wierdman for hosting this tournament, which has gone surprisinly fast.


Overview:

In this debate you should look to who has the most clear warrants for their arguments. In order for Pro to prove utilitarianism is morally righteous (conceded definiton) he must explain why 1. We look to only consequences when determining morality of an action, and 2. That happiness is intrinsically good. If you as the judge feel that Pro has not answered these questions (hint: he hasn't) then the ballot goes Con.


I'll keep Pro's last round format.


Objectivity

The reason I ask pro to prove happiness itself as "objectively" good is to ensure that the cannot use appeals to emotion to justify his arguments. Because if we're not debating that Util is "objectively" good, then the alternative is that its "subjectively" good. But if the debate is about Utility being subjectively good, its impossible for me to negate because Pro can just say "I think Util is cool" and win the debate, since he's proved in his subjective opinion that its ok.

Therefore we look to whether Pro has proved Util as an objective good, which means he must justify the specific tenets of utility, such as happiness being intrinsically good, without appealing to your emotions to justify this for him. We see though that intuition appeals is all he has in the following points.


Is/ought

I never brought up the is/ought problem in my last round. I think he misinterprets my argument about him needing to prove the inherent worth of happiness as this issue. I would have argued the is/ought problem had I said "because we can't know what we ought too based off what is, we can't actually know anything, thus we can't know Utility is good". However, I never made this argument. I merely asked him to prove to us why happiness (chemical reactions) is inherently good. He hasn't even attempted to explain this.


Ethics/Metaethics


Pro thinks that judging Utilitarianism as good is similar to eating tacos. However, I am a Mexican-American, and feel deeply offended that he would use my country's prized food as an object to win your ballot. Vote Con for racial discrimination. Jimtimmy is not allowed to vote on this debate.


But if thats not good enough reason, I'll continue the refutation. Pro basically wants you to accept Util as good because it sounds good, just like tacos "smell" good. But metaethics, contrary to what he argues here, is not about what moral system sounds better than the other based on instinct. Metaethics asks "why is X good or bad". Which means pro must specifically tell you why happiness itself is moral. He can't just say "well, we like it, and it appeals to people". Again, this is an appeal to emotion and it a poor attempt at justifying a moral system. Thus, extend that he has no justification for the series of chemical reactions that cause human pleasure. Pro has failed to uphold utility by not even attempting to justify its main tenet.


Consequentialism


Pro agrees that intentions people have when carrying out an action do matter. Furthermore, he says that he rejects a system that ignores intentions. You can vote con right here, because by definition, Utilitarianism ignores the intent people have in an action and looks only at what end result it produces. He defines Util as "The most happiness for the greatest number". Look at this definitio; its only accounting for happiness produced and not whether the intent of the action was good. He has therefore conceded the debate right here. He rejects moral systems that ignore intent of actions, which is exactly what consequentialism and Utilitarianism do.


My case:


"Parade of the horribles" (my contentions 2, 3, 5 and 6)

Pro concedes that the things I said Utility would advocate are immoral, when he says "Incidentally, Con agrees with me that those things are bad". Furthermore, he has given no reason whatsoever to counter my logic that Utility would support things like date rape and overpopulation.

His only response is that things like date rape and forced donations make people unhappy, so util wouldn't advocate them. Except, these things DO lead to a net gain in happiness. Date-rape does not make anyone unhappy because the victim is unconscious. Pro donating all his money to charity would save possibly hundreds of lives at the expense of one. All my outrageous examples lead to more people being happy, so Util advocates them. My opponent therefore concedes that Utilitarianism is bad by admitting that these things are immoral.

He also says that I haven't proven that things like date rape, forced donations, and overpopulation are actually bad. This falls right into my trap. In actuality, I am appealing to your emotions in order for you to realize that the murdering doctor example is bad. I haven't actually proven it wrong, I'm only appealing to intuition. This was purposely done, because if you can't accept the murdering doctor or date rape examples as bad because they don't appeal to us, you can't accept happiness itself as good because it emotionally appeals to us. This is a double-bind: Either happiness is prima facie good and my examples are prima facie bad, or my examples can't be proven bad and happiness can't be proven good. Either outcome negates Utilitarianism.


Inconsistency critique


Pro says other moral systems like Christianity are inconsistent too. So what? Christianity isn't necessarily right. If other moral systems are inconsistent, then they're unsound as well.


His economy example is a false analogy. While Keynesians and Austrians are both trying to help the economy, they use entire different methods to reach them. But when you talk about diverting a trolley from 5 people to 1, and then saving 5 hospital patients by stealing the organs from 1, morally speaking these are the exact same thing. Yet one is clearly moral and the other is not. Inconsistency.

Pro hasn't refuted that Util in inconsistent. Extend that his moral theory use the same logic to reach different conclusions.



Conclusion

Remember the overview; to win, Pro must explain to you why 1. Only consequences matter, not intent and 2. Happiness itself has intrinsic worth. These are the premises that make up Utilitarianism. My opponent actually says that intent does matter, which negates Utilitarianism by default because it only looks at happiness produced, and not whether it was intentional. He also completely neglected to justify happiness as moral, outside of appealing to emotion, which is not how you justify metaethics. Therefore Utility hasn't been proven good.

Moreover, I showed that Util permits things like date rape, abuse, and violation of freedom. He has no response other than these make people unhappy, when in reality they lead to a net benefit in some circumstances.

Finally, my opponent has displayed blatant racism in this debate which I take offense to. Even though I am not actually Mexican, I find it morally reprehensible that he would use the staple food of a culture as a tool to get people to vote for him. For shame.

For all of these reasons I urge a Con vote.





Debate Round No. 2
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Congratulations, BlackVoid!
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
<snort>
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
I think we've all learned a valuable lesson today. On DDO, you can talk about anarchy, you can talk about communism, you can even talk about Nihilism. But mention the word sociopath or taco, you've got a problem. Rofl.
Posted by Micromann 2 years ago
Micromann
Point taken. I guess I just misinterpreted your statements. I took "Utilitarianism is cool. It is a simple workable moral goal, that everybody except sociopaths can get behind." to be in jest, but still jokingly state that anyone who does not support utilitarianism to be sociopathic. But you have stated this not to be your intent. I apologize for accusing you wrongly and see no reason to contine discussing it, as no parties (myself included) intended to be discourteous.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
@Microman
Not to disagree with your conclusion, but I never said this:

: Wiploc basically stated that Con and anyone who does not believe in utilitarianism is sociopathic,

I distinguished between sociopaths and people who have no interest in being good. You don't have to be utilitarian to not be a sociopath, you just have to have some kind of morality. You have to think some behaviors are better than others.

I never thought or hinted that Con a sociopath, nor that other non-utilitarians are sociopaths.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: Um...that was a joke.

Then I withdraw my complaint.
Posted by Micromann 2 years ago
Micromann
Wiploc stated that "everybody except sociopaths can get behind" utilitarianism. BlackVoid stated that he was offended by Wiploc's use of tacos in his debate and that "Jimtimmy is not allowed to vote on this debate". I do not see much of a difference between the two; neither of you intended for the statements to offend anyone or to be taken as serious voting issues, but both could be taken as offensive. Wiploc basically stated that Con and anyone who does not believe in utilitarianism is sociopathic, which could easily be taken offensively. BlackVoid stated that it was racist of Pro to use the analogy of Mexican food, which could be taken offensively as well. I assume both comments were in good faith, and so I believe neither should be taken as a voting issue for conduct. But that is just my two cents.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
That was an excellent reason, Mr.Infidel.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Take what seriously?
Posted by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
I dont think any voters will actually take that seriously :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mestari 2 years ago
Mestari
wiplocBlackVoidTied
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: This RFD will be short but if either debater has questions, feel free to ask. Pro BoP: Util = Good Pro argument: 1. Util = happiness Con Argument: 1. Tons of non-responsive critiques. 2. Happiness =/= good. Pro doesn't refute that happiness isn't inherently good, and by proxy doesn't prove that utilitarianism is good. Nothing else really matters. I don't know how people found "skidding around Con's arguments" the most direct way to vote, or how Mr. Infidel voted on appeal to e
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
wiplocBlackVoidTied
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 had a good opening and some of con's arguments weren't very strong but in the last round pro rather danced around them instead of destroying them which he could have easily done
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
wiplocBlackVoidTied
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: Clear win for Con. Pro never combated the claims made about Utilitarianism directly but instead chose to skid around the debate in order to save face.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
wiplocBlackVoidTied
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: Comments