The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,400 times Debate No: 79283
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (63)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

morality=right+intent

deadly poisonous mushroom=immoral to give to my kid
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for creating this debate about a hot topic that definitely needs to be discussed in an intellectual and respectful manner.

My first point:
I can able to reason, but that doesn’t mean I always make the right choices. I can even able reason without atheism or theism. That proves nothing.

Able reason is not reason atheists, but able reason is not theists either. Let me math that for you.

Able reason =/= theists =/= atheists

Therefore,

Able reason = agnostic

Agnostic = moral = able reason

Exist = agnostic = number 1 = able reason.

From what I can tell, my opponent means to say one of two things. Either that the ability to reason is moral and something about atheism and theism, or the ability to reason is what determines morality, not atheism or theism.

Just in case you guys don’t like my trolling, here’s a legitimate point. The ability to reason does not generate or determine morality. Watch The Dark Knight. The Joker is very reasonable in that he has a legitimate reason for what he does. However, what he does (murder people, steal, and cause mass terror) are things that we generally consider immoral. Aside from that, most philosophies have a fairly reasonable backing to them, but that doesn’t make them all right, because most of them disagree with each other on some level which breaks the law of non-contradiction.

Now that we got that out of my throat, I’m going to move onto my rebuttals.

First of all, my opponent asserts that morality is right plus intent. I think we need to clarify that morality can also be left plus intent. Right and left are not inherently moral or immoral. That would be a very petty determination of morality. So it’s not just the right we have to consider. What if you’re a liberal and you tend to reason to the left? That’s not fair. I think my opponent is an extreme rightist.

Second of all, it is not necessarily immoral to give your kid a poisonous mushroom. There are plenty of rebellious teens who have murdered a few people in their lives. What if this kid is taking out everyone in the neighborhood? He’s got like 40 tallies in his room. The kid isn’t going to get death penalty because it would be cruel and unusual punishment to kill the teenage Joker, but you could give him a poisonous mushroom (or some hemlock or shove a belladonna down his throat). But yeah, I say the little Hannibal Lecter should probably be killed.

Thank you all for reading, and I wish my opponent a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you are either able to reason or not, can be is not

what

immorality is unresonAble

does the joker have the choice to, lets say, settle? like a normal family man, not doing any crimes, having a normal life.. btw the joker is as real as bugs bunny

how can you be moral if you cant do the right thing?

it might be right to kill the kid with the deadly poisonous mushroom, but then its not immoral, because its not wrong
Jonbonbon

Con


Thank you for that response.



Moving to more arguments.



My opponent argues that can be is not and what. I would like to counter that can be is and that.



My opponent also argues that the Joker is no more real than Bug’s Bunny. This may be true, however, that does not mean that my point is wrong. My point is that you can be reason that it is moral to break the law. For example, tax laws are too high, therefore it is okay for me to take loopholes to lower my taxes. Or I am in need, therefore, it is moral for me to rob a convenience store. Are they moral? Well, the second one is. I don’t really care about the government though. But yeah, hurting someone else to supply your own needs is generally considered immoral as it’s an infringement on someone else’s rights and property. However, you can reason that it’s okay to do that due to circumstances.



I would also like to point out that he didn’t address my argument about other moralities.



Oh man, there’s so many things I want to say, and I don’t even know where to start.



Okay, here we go: “how can you be moral if you cant do the right thing?” – my opponent.



So this argument questions assuming that something is definitely right, but the debate is about determining how we decide what is right. Unless I completely misunderstood.



I don’t know.



I honestly am not sure about what my opponent is trying to say. He seems to be really incoherent.



I’m sorry, that’s probably poor conduct to start talking like that during the debate.



Um, I don’t know what else I want to say. It can all be summed up in, “My opponent has no coherent thought process, sentence structure, or arguments that I can determine. Thus the fact that I oppose him makes me the winner.”



Thank you for reading.




Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

put it in contekst, can be able to reason, or is able to reason

moral is logical, immoral is illogical

selfish=sell fish

what argument about other moralities?

resonable=having my eyes open in order to read these words
unresonable=closing them to read

you lack of intelligence is your incoherence..
Jonbonbon

Con

Yeah, I guess I'm not all there intellectually. I mean, I'm a total idiot for not understanding your very clear argument up top. Guess I should just give up.

Or I could point out that the last round didn't make sense or hold a rebuttal, so I'm still winning.

Thanks for reading.

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

am i wrong somehow? or did you fail to be con entirely?
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for that response. Going back over this real quick.

The last two rounds haven't really presented anything new on my opponent's part or have any sort of argument in them.

The entire debate, my opponent has not stated any coherent arguments (not from what I could discern anyway).

However, I have presented at least two arguments (and even if I wasn't as clear as I could've been up top, this is me making that clear right now).

1) Assuming that my opponent's resolution means "The ability to reason determines morality, not atheism or theism" then my response to that is that reason alone is not enough. I provided the example of the Joker in The Dark Knight (essentially a pyschopathic anarchist). He actually has reasons for doing things, and they're actually very well thought out reasons. The fact that he is reasonable does not mean that he is in the moral right.

To this my opponent just said that the Joker is as real as Bugs Bunny, and if the Joker was a nice family man who didn't break the law then he would've been a morally good person.

That's not a proper rebuttal for a few reasons. The first is that most people in American aren't family men (most are children or women. Male adults get the minority for that reason). Also, being a nice family man doesn't mean you're always a good person. You can still lie or cheat in some things. You can be selfish. These things are generally considered immoral (at least like one out of the three in that list is considered immoral).

I also presented the argument, that many different philosphies are technically reasonable, but because of the face that they disagree, they cannot all be right. That would break the law of non contradiction.

2) If my opponent means "Being able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism," then that really doesn't make any sense, and the arguments above still sort of defeat that.

So thank you ladies and gentlemen for reading this. I wish my opponent a good final round.


Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

the arguments are in the unanswered questions i asked you
Jonbonbon

Con

Questions are not arguments. Questions are questions. This debate format does not include a crossfire or cross examination.

Thank you for reading this.
Debate Round No. 5
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i think so
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Have you ever talked to imabench before?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
something=true, no belief involved
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing or starting debate topics. The only reason someone does that is because they believe something.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i have no beliefs
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Well, you're extremely unreasonable anyway, so all of your Epiphanes seem to be as well.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
unresonable revelation?
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
You're not making any sense. Why are you talking about heroes killing themselves? Is DDO just s place for you to come spout out your undercooked and unreasonable revelations
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the hero must feel like killing himself because killing is evil
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
bots are not alive
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
vi_spexJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is nearly incomprehenaible, and fails to establish what their point is. Con makes a valiant effort at rebutting gibberish. Pro fails to have a single grammatically correct sentence. Con is able to communicate concepts using language.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
vi_spexJonbonbonTied
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: Jonbonbon was the only one who made convincing and relatively understandable arguments while vi spexs only asked questions, dropped arguments and said things I didn't understand. I vote Con