The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

William Lane Craig's Moral argument is flawed.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,211 times Debate No: 30476
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

I'll be arguing that William Lane Craig's moral argument is flawed:

(P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
(P2) Objective moral values do exist;
(C) Therefore, God exists.

This will be the structure of the debate:
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round 3/4 - Rebuttals
Typhlochactas

Con

I accept. The burden of proof is on Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

I'll be arguing that William Lane Craig's moral argument is flawed:

(P1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
(P2) Objective moral values do exist;
(C) Therefore, God exists.

My first problem comes at the first premise, as it's a bit random. I don't see how a supernatural being os relevant to objective morality, It's not incorrect, it's just odd.

The second premise is where I have my big problem. This is a baseless assertion. When William Lane Craig uses this argument, he simply asserts that they exist, and that 'deep down, we all know it'. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument at all. I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist. As even when held by a supernatural being, can one opinion be more valid than another? What is morally good or morally bad is simply opinion. When somebody says that murder is morally good, you cannot disprove them or prove them to be correct. That is why objective morality cannot exist, because no opinion can be more valid than another, even when there's a supernatural being who will punish you for not doing what he thinks is morally good, that still doesn't make them objective, just like it wouldn't make the statement 'Icecream is cool' true even if there were a supernatural being who would punish you for not thinking this.

I'm interested to hear Con's response.
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Formulation

Pro's Claim: My first problem comes at the first premise, as it's a bit random. I don't see how a supernatural being os relevant to objective morality, It's not incorrect, it's just odd.


There is nothing strange or random about Dr. Craig's formulation. It's a standard Modus tollens formulation. Logically, it states that if P implies Q, and not Q, therefore not P. Here's an example of what Modus tollens looks like in an argument.

Without hydrogen and oxygen, water could not exist. Water does exist. Therefore, hydrogen and oxygen exist.

Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth
Pro's Claim: As even when held by a supernatural being, can one opinion be more valid than another? What is morally good or morally bad is simply opinion. When somebody says that murder is morally good, you cannot disprove them or prove them to be correct. That is why objective morality cannot exist, because no opinion can be more valid than another

Pro's logic can be used to undermine any truth at all. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, there must not be any truths to be known about physics! Our beliefs about physics are merely cultural and biological. A person in Africa has a different idea of physics than I do. Physics that work America don't have to work in Brazil. This is insane, but it's relativism taken to its logical consequences.

Do objective moral values and duties exist?
Pro's Claim: The second premise is where I have my big problem. This is a baseless assertion. When William Lane Craig uses this argument, he simply asserts that they exist, and that 'deep down, we all know it'. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument at all.

Pro argues that we have no reason to believe in the second premise of the argument, so the entire argument must be unjustified. However, we have good reasons to believe that objective moral values and duties exist.

1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral

2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily

3) Some objective moral knowledge exists

Therefore,

4) Moral truths exis
t.

Misunderstanding the argument
Pro's Claim: even when there's a supernatural being who will punish you for not doing what he thinks is morally good, that still doesn't make them objective, just like it wouldn't make the statement 'Icecream is cool' true even if there were a supernatural being who would punish you for not thinking this.

Pro shows that he does understanding the ontology of objective moraity with god. God is not capable of giving us objective moral values simply because he can punish us if we don't follow them. In fact, the moral argument has nothing to do with being punished by god for not following the moral values he prescribes to us. Pro is only erecting a straw man argument here.

The reason why god can provide us with objective morality is because he is a perfect and maximally great being, and he is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral. It has nothing at all to do with punishment, for any being can punish any other being for performing an action that is not actually immoral.

Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist?
Pro's Claim: I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist.

Here, Pro makes a very bold claim that we should pay attention to. Pro doesn't believe that objective moral values are unlikely to exist. He actually believes it is impossible for them to exist. This is a bold claim, and I expect a lot of justification for such a belief.

Concluding Statement
I have presented two major rebuttals against Pro:

1) Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth.
2) Objective moral values and duties exist.

I have also presented three minor rebuttals against Pro:

1) Dr. Craig's formulation is perfectly valid and normal in logic.
2) Punishment has nothing to do with the ontology of morality with god.
3) Pro makes a bold claim when he argues that objective morality cannot exist. This should be considered when the audience votes, because he has set very high standards of proof for himself

Vale.


Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

1
My Claim:
My first problem comes at the first premise, as it's a bit random. I don't see how a supernatural being os relevant to objective morality, It's not incorrect, it's just odd.

Con's Claim:
There is nothing strange or random about Dr. Craig's formulation. It's a standard Modus tollens formulation. Logically, it states that if P implies Q, and not Q, therefore not P. Here's an example of what Modus tollens looks like in an argument.Without hydrogen and oxygen, water could not exist. Water does exist. Therefore, hydrogen and oxygen exist.

Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality.

2
My Claim:
As even when held by a supernatural being, can one opinion be more valid than another? What is morally good or morally bad is simply opinion. When somebody says that murder is morally good, you cannot disprove them or prove them to be correct. That is why objective morality cannot exist, because no opinion can be more valid than another.

Con's Claim: Pro's logic can be used to undermine any truth at all. If I say that voodoo practices are justified by physics, and Victor Stenger tells me otherwise, there must not be any truths to be known about physics! Our beliefs about physics are merely cultural and biological. A person in Africa has a different idea of physics than I do. Physics that work America don't have to work in Brazil. This is insane, but it's relativism taken to its logical consequences.

My point was that no matter what opinion somebody has on morality, you cannot prove them wrong, which makes what is moral and what is immoral opinion. Facts are objective, because you can prove them to be right. Con has yet to prove that morality is objective and not subjective by proving a statement like 'Murder is immoral' to be correct or incorrect.

3
My Claim: The second premise is where I have my big problem. This is a baseless assertion. When William Lane Craig uses this argument, he simply asserts that they exist, and that 'deep down, we all know it'. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument at all.

Con's Claim: Pro argues that we have no reason to believe in the second premise of the argument, so the entire argument must be unjustified. However, we have good reasons to believe that objective moral values and duties exist.

1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral

2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily

3) Some objective moral knowledge exists

Therefore,

4) Moral truths exist.

This argument put forward by Con is very weak. Since people's opinions on morality differ, what A does to P that A considers moral may be considered immoral by P. Making bacon sandwiches for a Muslim, for example. Morals do exist, but they're subjective as they're opinions. Two people may agree on what is moral, but that doesn't make morality objective as morality is just an opinion. Just because some people share an opinion, it doesn't mean that the opinion is objective, it is still subjective, as you cannot prove or disprove it.

4
My Claim: even when there's a supernatural being who will punish you for not doing what he thinks is morally good, that still doesn't make them objective, just like it wouldn't make the statement 'Icecream is cool' true even if there were a supernatural being who would punish you for not thinking this.

Con's Claim: Pro shows that he does understanding the ontology of objective moraity with god. God is not capable of giving us objective moral values simply because he can punish us if we don't follow them. In fact, the moral argument has nothing to do with being punished by god for not following the moral values he prescribes to us. Pro is only erecting a straw man argument here.

The reason why god can provide us with objective morality is because he is a perfect and maximally great being, and he is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral. It has nothing at all to do with punishment, for any being can punish any other being for performing an action that is not actually immoral.

How is it decided what is moral and what is immoral? That's like saying that God cannot have any bad opinions. What makes something moral or immoral? Why is causing pain bad? Why is giving someone a gift good? The statement 'God is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral' is faulty, as what is moral and immoral is just opinion.

5
My Claim: I'd actually argue that objective morality cannot exist.

Con's Claim: Here, Pro makes a very bold claim that we should pay attention to. Pro doesn't believe that objective moral values are unlikely to exist. He actually believes it is impossible for them to exist. This is a bold claim, and I expect a lot of justification for such a belief.

No, I'd claim that objective morality cannot exist, as an opinion cannot be objective, it is subjective. You cannot prove anyone's view of morality or immorality wrong. How could you?

Conclusion
- The first premise is faulty, as objective morality cannot exist even if there's a God.
- The second premise is faulty, as objective morality cannot exist.
-The conclusion is wrong, as none of the premises are true.

Also, I do not consider logic or facts to be subjective, I only consider opinions to be subjective.
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Formulation
Pro's Claim: Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality.

This part of my argument was meant to show that Dr. Craig's formulation was not invalid, or any other word Pro gave to it in his opening argument. After correcting Pro, he decided to attack the P implies Q part of the moral argument. I'm not exactly sure why he brought up in this section of the debate.

An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality. (Apeiron)


Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth
Pro's Claim: My point was that no matter what opinion somebody has on morality, you cannot prove them wrong, which makes what is moral and what is immoral opinion. Facts are objective, because you can prove them to be right. Con has yet to prove that morality is objective and not subjective by proving a statement like 'Murder is immoral' to be correct or incorrect.

Here, Pro attempts to seperate moral judgements from reality. It's all just a matter of opinion on his view. This view cannot be true, as there are objective facts to be known about right and wrong.

If somebody argues that witchcraft is immoral and that we should burn witches, we can prove that their opinion is wrong using objective facts. We can use our modern day scientific knowledge to show that witchcraft does not exist. We can also use scientific data to show that burning people alive as punishment might not be a great idea.

The dichtonomy that Pro sets up between moral values and objective facts is not true, because we can concieve of situations where moral values are subject to objective fact.

Do objective moral values and duties exist?
Pro's Claim: This argument put forward by Con is very weak. Since people's opinions on morality differ, what A does to P that A considers moral may be considered immoral by P. Making bacon sandwiches for a Muslim, for example. Morals do exist, but they're subjective as they're opinions. Two people may agree on what is moral, but that doesn't make morality objective as morality is just an opinion. Just because some people share an opinion, it doesn't mean that the opinion is objective, it is still subjective, as you cannot prove or disprove it.

Pro misunderstands the point of the argument I presented in the last round of the debate. Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.

Consider Pro's bacon analogy and how it would fit in my argument.

'For every action (givng bacon to a Muslim) affecting a person (Muslim), if giving bacon to a Muslim has moral content, then giving bacon to a Muslim cannot be amoral.'

In the latter part of his rebuttal, Pro only erects a straw man argument. I have not argued that objective moral values exist because some people share the same opinion on a moral issue. I will not defend my position against a straw man.


Misunderstanding the argument
Pro's Claim: How is it decided what is moral and what is immoral? That's like saying that God cannot have any bad opinions. What makes something moral or immoral? Why is causing pain bad? Why is giving someone a gift good? The statement 'God is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral' is faulty, as what is moral and immoral is just opinion.

Pro doesn't repond to half of what I said in the last round. I pointed out that punishment has absolutely nothing to do with god being a sound moral ontology. He didn't get back to me on this correction. Does he agree with my correction? Does he disagree with it? Simply ignoring half of my argument isn't very productive.

Right and wrong is not a matter of opinion if you are the objective basis of morality. Imagine a being that knows everything there is to know about neuroscience. Furthermore, it is incapable of lying about neuroscientific truths. This being could determine what is objectively true about neuroscience and what is objectively false, because it knows everything about the subject, and cannot lie. Why would it be different with a being that knows everything about morality, and cannot lie?


Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist?

Pro's Claim: No, I'd claim that objective morality cannot exist, as an opinion cannot be objective, it is subjective. You cannot prove anyone's view of morality or immorality wrong. How could you?

There is no operative difference between saying 'Objective moraltiy cannot exist' and 'Objective morality is impossible'.


Concluding Statement
Pro attempts to make himself look more moderate by changing words around. However, his own statements show that he believes objective morality is impossible. As I said earlier, this is a very bold claim, and it is much different than saying there is no reason to believe objective morality exists.

Pro has given us no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with Dr. Craig's formulation. I showed that Dr. Craig's formulation was in a logical Modus tollens form. Pro never responded to this correction.

I have also showed that moral values must correspond to reality, because we can concieve of moral values that are subject to objective facts about reality.

In the last round, I gave an argument for why objective moral values and duties exist. Pro responded to this with the tired line that 'people can have different opinions on that action'. As I showed earlier, all this statement did was reinforce the premise of my argument rather than tear it down.

I demonstrated that punishment from god has nothing to do with his ontology. Pro entirely ignored this in his latest round.

Al things considered, Pro has not upheld his burden of proof.

Vale.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

Formulation
My Claim: Con has yet to prove that this analogy is correct in saying that a God implies objective morality.
Con's Claim: This part of my argument was meant to show that Dr. Craig's formulation was not invalid, or any other word Pro gave to it in his opening argument. After correcting Pro, he decided to attack the P implies Q part of the moral argument. I'm not exactly sure why he brought up in this section of the debate.

An objective moral prescriber is necessary for objective moral prescriptions, and an objective moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. God is a maximally great being, and since it's intuitively greater to be the standard of moral perfection rather than exemplify it, then it follows that God would be the moral standard were he to exist, which makes him uniquely qualified in issuing commands. Therefore, God is the most plausible and least arbitrary standard, necessary for moral reality. (Apeiron)

Morality is subjective. My point was not how it was structured, it's just that opinion cannot be objective, no matter what any supernatural being says. A supernatural being cannot do the impossible. It cannot make opinion objective.

Moral conflict does not imply a lack of moral truth
My Claim: My point was that no matter what opinion somebody has on morality, you cannot prove them wrong, which makes what is moral and what is immoral opinion. Facts are objective, because you can prove them to be right. Con has yet to prove that morality is objective and not subjective by proving a statement like 'Murder is immoral' to be correct or incorrect.
Con's Claim: Pro misunderstands the point of the argument I presented in the last round of the debate. Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.

Consider Pro's bacon analogy and how it would fit in my argument.

'For every action (givng bacon to a Muslim) affecting a person (Muslim), if giving bacon to a Muslim has moral content, then giving bacon to a Muslim cannot be amoral.'

In the latter part of his rebuttal, Pro only erects a straw man argument. I have not argued that objective moral values exist because some people share the same opinion on a moral issue. I will not defend my position against a straw man.

That's exactly my point. One person may have moral intentions, but that doesn't make it so. I could have moral intentions in murdering innocent people, but that doesn't make it moral. It is opinion as to whether it is moral or immoral, just like it's opinion as to whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Misunderstanding the argument
My Claim: How is it decided what is moral and what is immoral? That's like saying that God cannot have any bad opinions. What makes something moral or immoral? Why is causing pain bad? Why is giving someone a gift good? The statement 'God is incapable of ordering us to do anything that is not moral' is faulty, as what is moral and immoral is just opinion.
Con's claim: Pro doesn't repond to half of what I said in the last round. I pointed out that punishment has absolutely nothing to do with god being a sound moral ontology. He didn't get back to me on this correction. Does he agree with my correction? Does he disagree with it? Simply ignoring half of my argument isn't very productive.

Right and wrong is not a matter of opinion if you are the objective basis of morality. Imagine a being that knows everything there is to know about neuroscience. Furthermore, it is incapable of lying about neuroscientific truths. This being could determine what is objectively true about neuroscience and what is objectively false, because it knows everything about the subject, and cannot lie. Why would it be different with a being that knows everything about morality, and cannot lie?

First I'll respond to the second paragraph. Just because you have a being that cannot lie saying that X is moral, that does not make it so, for that would imply that you could prove or disprove statements like 'Eating wheat is immoral'. An opinion is not true or false and therefore, it would not change anything if these statements of what is moral and what is immoral were coming from a being that cannot lie. As for the correction, yes, I'll agree with it, I was strawmanning that argument.

Is it impossible for objective moral values to exist?
My Claim: No, I'd claim that objective morality cannot exist, as an opinion cannot be objective, it is subjective. You cannot prove anyone's view of morality or immorality wrong. How could you?
Con's Claim: There is no operative difference between saying 'Objective moraltiy cannot exist' and 'Objective morality is impossible'.
I agree with what Con has said, however, he hasn't really responded to the arguments I made in my claim/

Concluding Statement
I'd say that I have definitely met my burden of proof. I've said that whatever is moral or immoral is simply opinion because you have absolutely no way of proving or disproving these statements. I've stated that objective morality cannot exist/ is impossible because opinion is not objective, it is subjective. Thus, objective morality cannot exist, even if a supernatural being is involved. This invalidates both premises of William Lane Craig's argument, making the conclusion false and the whole argument faulty.

Vote for Pro.
Typhlochactas

Con

Ave.

Closing Statement
In round four, Pro completely drops my argument in favor of objective morality. Since he drops the point, my argument stands. If my argument stands, then objective morality exists, and the moral argument is upheld. Ergo, a vote for Con is the most rational decision.

Vale
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
BAMThatDeafGuy wrote:
: God simply being a figure, if he does not exist how does one argue FOR or AGAINST his existence.

Gods have to exist before they can be disproven?

: As one philosopher notes that an idea(finite) bigger than itself(infinite) cannot be possible without the existence of an infinite being-God.

Does he give a reason for that?

: These two arguments go hand in hand. If pro acknowledges attributes of an infinite being then clearly God must exist and because we debate the existence of God acknowledging his attributes then is this too not proof of existence?

If we acknowledge Superman's attributes in order to have a conversation about him, that proves that Superman exists?
Posted by BAMThatDeafGuy 4 years ago
BAMThatDeafGuy
I had been making this argument to prove the existence of God for years, had no idea its been argued before by William Craig. And I'd cast a vote for Con in support of this argument. It seemed Pro was arguing more so the role of God, which isn't the point. God simply being a figure, if he does not exist how does one argue FOR or AGAINST his existence. As one philosopher notes that an idea(finite) bigger than itself(infinite) cannot be possible without the existence of an infinite being-God. These two arguments go hand in hand. If pro acknowledges attributes of an infinite being then clearly God must exist and because we debate the existence of God acknowledging his attributes then is this too not proof of existence?
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
Get back to me on that debate Cinco.
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
DDO will not confirm my phone, so I can't officially participate. That said - though not stated, Pro's "flaw" was clearly a reference to the soundness of the argument, not the validity. Con failed to address several assertions made by Pro and retreated into a failed effort to use the argument's validity to prove soundness - twice - and failed. And I'd give Pro a "better" grammar vote, based solely on a personal preference for accuracy in communication, as opposed to "lingo" that is so often used to confuse and/or make nonsense sound authoritative. Con appeared to think he would walk right over Pro, but people who actually do their own thinking aren't so easily trampled. Kudos to Pro's civility. I would have sacrificed a good conduct medal to draw a little blood. References, tied. All other points to Pro.
Posted by SinNoMore 4 years ago
SinNoMore
*** Those questions I posed below are rhetorical I suppose; that was just what I was thinking while reading this debate.
Posted by SinNoMore 4 years ago
SinNoMore
It seems as if Pro kept reducing God's role in the foundation and basis of morality to something like that of a finite human, saying that God's "opinion" would not be any more valid than any human's opinion. This seems to be misunderstanding of God's ontology. It might be useful for Pro to look up that term as it relates to God and research it a bit so that he might acquire a more fully formed understanding of the point that Con was making. In addition, Pro's argument contradicts itself. "as an opinion cannot be objective, it is subjective." That statement is Pro's opinion, and it is put forth as an objective truth that applies to all opinions. Therefore there are two options: Either this opinion is the exception to his own rule (which is contradictory), or this opinion has no real truth value, as it is subjective, therefore, why think it to be valid? The argument collapses if the logical outcome is followed. Also, would Pro's sense of subjective morality stand strong if he was about to be raped and murdered?
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
It's kind of like saying "P1) If cars do not exist, then roads do not exist - P2) Roads do exist - C) Cars do exist." The first premise assumes the only purpose of roads is to accommodate cars and Craig's argument assumes the only source of morality is a God. It also assumes a God WOULD create what man perceives as "morality". Which is a whole other debate.
Posted by Cyrano 4 years ago
Cyrano
I'll give it a shot but just so you know - this would be my first debate. I hope I don't let the side down!
Posted by Cyrano 4 years ago
Cyrano
I'll give it a shot but this would be my first debate. I hope I don't let the side down!
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
I don't think your understanding of my position is accurate. Rather than get into a large comments debate, would you like to debate me about morality in our own debate?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
KingDebaterTyphlochactasTied
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: Pro's case against the Moral Argument was incredibly weak, and basically amounted to shifting the burden of proof on to Con, when Pro had the burden of proof since he was making the claim. Pro's arguments show that he really doesn't understand the Moral Argument. In fact, whenever Con rebutted Pro's arguments, Pro didn't rebut Con's rebuttals. He just reiterated his arguments from the first round that Con rebutted. Clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
KingDebaterTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countered Wiploc's spurious source vote, I myself gave intellectual permission to use whatever I write. There is no problem of plagiarism on Con's part anyhow, and I told him in personal communication that he's always free to copy what I say, this is a forum site, it's not a professional society. And it shouldn't be treated as such when we want to get our beliefs out there on the table and have the content of our beliefs voted on, not petty matters. Now Con was more convincing since he did a remarkable job of dealing with the substance of Pro's actual objections, he did a superb job here and I think this is Con at his best. He even gave examples from physics on how premise one is valid and legitimate! Wonderful. On the other hand Pro veiled us in reletivistic mystery. At most reality was left vague with Pro's arguments but Con just made his view more obviously true in the end. Job well done for Pro too though, very interesti
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
KingDebaterTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Source points to Firstguy since Secondguy plagiarized.
Vote Placed by AnthraSight 4 years ago
AnthraSight
KingDebaterTyphlochactasTied
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: Wiploc's vote is obviously biased. He gives Pro two points because he doesn't agree with the way Con quoted Apeiron during the debate. Other than that, Wiploc never votes on any other subject of the debate. He votes on the part that gives his side points, and ignores the parts that would give Con points.*** nevertheless I'll easily take Wiploc up on his offer since he gave a better RFD, and since Apeiron convinced me to remove my counter out of respect for Wiploc. Now I at first agreed with Pro but he just failed to hold the water at the end of the day. Con got down to the NATURE of morals whereas Pro merely repeated his objections that were already dealt with by Con. Hence my vote goes to Con.