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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,393 times Debate No: 77394
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (79)
Votes (1)




healthy mushroom=not immoral to give to my kid
deadly poisonous mushroom=immoral to give to my kid
"default setting"

it is wrong for me to punch you, unless its right, morality explained



Forgive me for the poem I put in the comments :3

The second I glanced at the title;
I knew it wasn't trifle.
The philosophy of vi_spex,
oh, how it lacked in intellect.
I looked at the familiar name,
and wondered if he was sane.
Oh how it sounded very vi_spex,
and with the infectious stupidity he radiated, I was vexed.
I read his other debates;
I lost a few neurons to my fate.
Oh how I wish you would stop, vi_spex,
Your intellect is merely a speck.
The ideals you believe in
are not bright, are instead dim.
Your mentality is stupid,
they are not like cupid's.
Do not try to preach things that are so vi_spex like,
to others they are spikes.

I was only trying to create a Poem. This is the best poem I've created so far. (Ignoring the insults)


Reason Intent = Morality

Hitler loved his Country, (Germany), committed acts of aggression only to improve his Country's economy, power, and influence. He was extremely patriotic, extraordinary (though deluded), and simply adored his people, his Wife, his Family, and his Dog. He died a martyr, (suicide). He believed that he was doing good.

His intent was to improve Germany's economy, power and influence. He *ONLY* (I hope you see the sarcasm) wanted to improve the Country which he so loved. (Though through war, if necessary. In this case, it was.)

Hitler's Intent = Good (In a way)

Hitler's Reason = Good

Intent Reason = Morality

Positive (Good) Positive (Good) = Positive (Good)

Thus, from your fabulous equation, I conclude that Hitler was "Good".

Now, how many here can tell me wtf is wrong with this?

Firstly, Hitler might have adored his Country and all, but slaughtering 30 million people is purely genocide, be it good or bad intent, cannot be justified.

Would you flick a switch and kill half the world, including your loved ones, your family, friends, including yourself, purely for the sake of stopping overpopulation?*

"Oo, I had a good Reason and a good Intent. Hey, I'm good."

You'll get instantly executed. (Tortured viciously before that, though. Maybe personally by me >:) )

*This question was taken from the series of the Robert Langdon guy. Hey, I <3 his books

Debate Round No. 1


so my argument is wrong?


No wonder you've lost so much Debates -_-

Vote me, Pro is obviously ret@rded. No offence meant, but honestly. I mean, that's what I've been trying to explain the entire fking time. So now, all vote Con plz =)

But srsly, I thought Hitler had a damned family. Hmmmm...

Search Hitler Family Line (I think that solves many issues)

Vi_spex I don't feel like creating a poem now, so you'll have to wait till next round. The poem will be good I promise =)

P.S. Good at insulting you, shhh
Debate Round No. 2


look.. its not about the intent, its about the reason

if i punch you, its not about me intending the punch, its about why did i punch you


Look here, you dumb@ss,
Don't be stupid, my lass.
I know you're desperate for a win,
but your hopes are gonna go flying into the bin.
Nobody will vote Pro
'cause you were born low.
Everyone will vote Con (I hope)
'cause high I was born.
Your mentality is bad;
it contains no swag.
The contradiction is amazing
so amazing I'm puking.
Everyone will vote Con, (I guarantee you)
exactly before dawn.

Ok, I'm tired and bored of this Debate.

"morality = intent + reason"

"look.. its not about the intent, its about the reason

if i punch you, its not about me intending the punch, its about why did i punch you"

You just contradicted the title of this Debate. Hitler had reasons for war, he was extremely patriotic and wanted to do good for Germany. This doesn't justify his actions of killing over 30 million people though.
Debate Round No. 3


all intent is positive..

you have no argument



I don't get you, m8.

Firstly, all intent is positive?

All intent of everything is positive?


Or maybe you meant that Hitler's Intent is positive, which = Genocide of 30 million people are justified.

Ooo, Genocide in such a large number is totally justified.


I have no argument?

You're the one that has no argument, posting weak comebacks.

Your last argument contradicted itself.

Title: Reason + Intent = Morality

In your last argument, you stated:

Reason = Morality

And in your latest argument, you stated:

Intent = Morality

Now, tell me, what exactly is wrong with this?


I'm out of poems. Good luck =)
Debate Round No. 4


you are not pro.. and i just disproved your Whole thingy with a sentence

morality only applies when intent is added to a reason

is it wrong to reason about rape?



Are you ret@rded?

Your stupidity is infectious, honestly.

I am arguing that:

Intent + Reason DOES NOT = TO MORALITY

I said that Hitler's Reason and Intent. Was Good. Thus. Morality. Is. Good. Genocide. Was. Justified. But Genocide SHOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. (especially in this) In an equation, Positive + Positive = Positive

Hitler's Intent was added to his Reason. They were both positive. Thus, Morality = Good

But Hitler does not = Good

Must I spell out everything?

I am rebutting your "rebuttals" (if they can be called rebuttals) by giving examples on how your equation is wrong.

U keep changing.

Title: Reason + Intent = Morality

In your last argument, you stated:

Reason = Morality

And in your argument, you stated:

Intent = Morality

And now:
Is it wrong to reason about rape?

Now, wtf does rape has anything to do with Morality = Reason + Intent?
Debate Round No. 5
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
sure, i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it

religion=to rely on, while self is one
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
I have to admit that only you yourself know whether you just looked at your dog.

But I cannot accept the rest of your argument. If you could type out everything, compile all the debates in the comments so far, I'm sure I am able to rebut it
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i am telling you i just looked at my dog, but i am lying right now
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
did i just look at my dog?
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
"It is a fact you just looked at your dog. (If you did)

You KNOW you looked at your dog, and you PROVED it yourself by knowing it"

It is a fact, if you know it.

if you were asking for the literal definition of science, then go check it yourself

I get what you're driving at, but your theory is wrong.

Fact is not purely memory.

If you had a dog, if you looked at it, IT IS A FACT THAT YOU LOOKED AT IT.

My point is this:
You claimed you had a dog, and you looked at it.
Is this a fact?
Yes, it is.
It is a *fact to you* especially as you KNOW you looked at your dog, and you PROVED it by knowing that you looked at your dog.
Other people do not know whether it is a fact or not, only you know it is a fact, and it is a fact. But because they are not aware of it, they DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS A FACT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MEMORY OF IT. Sounds contradictory I know, but listen.

The point is this:
You are looking at your dog. If you don't have a dog, it is not a fact. If you have a dog and you looked at it, it is a fact. If you looked at your dog it is definitely a fact, and the truth. You know it, and you proved it. Others do not know of the fact. It is indeed like asking if I can see other people's memories. It is a fact, a fact only to you. Others can answer this easily. It is a fact. Looking at your dog is a fact. That is your question, nothing more. It is a fact to you. (if you had one) I cannot answer that indeed, but you can answer it. If you can answer it, then it is a fact, depending on the situation. Your future and things have little connection to our current debate...

I wonder how arguing about raping was related to this debate or not turned into this

I alrdy knew you had been lying in circles, which is why I added a few extra stuff like "If you had..." and other things like that.

I understand where you are driving from, and I acknowledge your point of view. But this is utter bullsh1t in reality.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
so votes determine nothing, its not god voting dont worry about it
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
what is science

my point was you dont know that stuff.. thats why there are other possibilities, as its a belief

god is false, possibilities are not real
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
I was bathing...
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
I don't have any votes currently.

This is Science, (supposedly) not Religion.

Yes, God could magically make it like that.

I also added that the chances were almost nil - next to 0, just in case you would say that sh1t again.

But your argument is based on no premise; God could be programming you to say this too.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
for me to ask, is me looking at my dog a fact or not, is like asking do you see other peoples memories? because i am the one who remembers if i just looked at my dog

i dont have a dog.. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Arguments. Con managed to refute Pro's assertion with a reductio ad absurdum, saying Hitler had reason and intent, thus is moral by Pro's logic. Pro dropped this entirely and asserts that all intent is positive. My advice here would be for Con to expand on his argument -- his argument has the assumption that Hitler is immoral; while Hitler is no doubt immoral, and it seems obvious, that link must, nonetheless, be established. Debaters must presume that every voter is tabula rasa, i.e. has no outside knowledge, and must explain their arguments with links and impacts as such. I think both sides had drops, but Con's reductio wins the impacts. Conduct. The conduct point is a clear Pro vote. Con opens with a poem insulting his opponent, and insults are hardly a way to start an argument. Con then says Pro is retarded, calling him a "dumb@ss", which are unnecessary ad hominems. I advice Con not to have such terrible conduct.