The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
batman01
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

morality=survival truth

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 157 times Debate No: 96752
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

as balance is a higher level then truth, an ugly rich man is more likely to get a female, then an ugly poor man and so dosnt have to be jealous of others or rape females to get a female
batman01

Con

Okay, I am accepting your debate even though it was not defined as explicitly as it should have been. I am assuming that we are debating whether or not morality is the same as survival (ie that morality is formed from what has allowed us to survive). This is the definition I am going to be using and as con I will be attempting to prove that morality is more than a set of guidelines which allow us to survive. First round I assume is for acceptance. Looking forward to a good debate, good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

keep in mind, survival=necessity=pain=death

eksample, why do we have nukes when they could destroy us all
batman01

Con

Hello, thank you to pro for that argument here is my response.

RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS OF PRO:

I am confused as to what you actually mean but I think I can show that these are wrong. Firstly, if we follow the chain of equals signs (crossing out necessity and pain) we are left with survival=death. This is I think obviously not true as survival is in many ways the opposite of death. Furthermore, I fail to see how pro's arguments do anything to prove whether or not morality is the same as survival. The word morality is not used and as I am really not exactly sure what he meant by his arguments (it is possible that I have just misunderstood you) I will stop criticizing his arguments and bring forth some of my own.

ARGUMENTS FOR MORALITY NOT BEING THE SAME AS SURVIVAL:

I admit that morality is developed through evolutionary processes but the fact remains that morality is different than survival. If morality is indeed survival I assume we mean that morality is just what is necessary to survive. This is not the case, things are done which are necessary to survive which are not moral. Take for example in the case of you starving while your friend also starves. Killing and eating the flesh of your friend may be necessary for your survival but I think it is quite obvious that this is not moral.

Morality is essentially a mechanism which we have developed to help each other and act kindly rather than maliciously against our fellow humans/animals. This extends beyond simply what is necessary for survival. I would be willing to expand upon these arguments in round three if pro desires, seeing as he has not yet (to my knowledge, once again I may just be confused) addressed the question I will not develop them any further.

Thanks and best of luck to pro.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

without pain or death there is no need to survive.
batman01

Con

Again I am really not at all sure how to respond to that. Without pain there would still be a need to survive (ie one can fight for one's life without pain), pain is just an evolutionary mechanism which helps us with survival. Thus far, pro has made no arguments which I can see that correspond to the debate which we are having. He has not addressed my arguments and the psuedo-arguments he has given have been mostly non-sensical. Because pro has not responsibly debated I forfeit my last round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Philosophy123// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Everything pro said was either nonsensical or extraordinarily confusing. Pro successfully refutes several of Pro's points and makes several semi-intelligent points relating to the debate.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both sides. The additional piece the voter added appears to have been miswritten, as the voter seems to be stating that Con refuted Pro's points, but the voter is still required to specifically analyze points made by Con. This is not specific analysis of those points.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 3 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Philosophy123// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Everything pro said was either nonsensical or extraordinarily confusing.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess points made by both sides. While this RFD might make sense as an assessment of Pro's points, the voter does not assess Con's points.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
as con
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
if this is the answer as you oppose it
Posted by batman01 1 month ago
batman01
What exactly is the question we are debating?
No votes have been placed for this debate.