The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 98767
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)



if a gigantic powerful highly advanced friendly warrior robot crash lands on earth without possibility of escape, that if threatened or in the face of violence will protect anyone and itself, does it make sense to attack it?


To answer Pro's question - NO. Self sacrifice (as oppose to "protect ... itself") would be the sensible option according to the ethos of the Friendly Robot. I address the video shown:

It entails literally a giant, powerful, advanced friendly warrior that crash landed and did not 'escape' - and threatened with nuclear death - sacrificed itself to protect the foolishness of human existence.

That Giant Robot shown was originally designed to wipe out humanity, yet died defending it. To that Robot, and the love experienced unconditionally between it and a boy, teaches us that humanity does reserve redemption besides its catastrophic nature.

Vote Con, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


so suicide is morality.. well you are obviusly religious


In round 1 religion was never defined as a necessity for morality, nor do I imply a religious narrative. With the video given I show Pro's character, "a gigantic powerful highly advanced friendly warrior robot crash lands on earth without possibility of escape, that if threatened or in the face of violence" would NOT protect itself given the circumstances mentioned by Pro. It's love for humanity, despite not being human, compelled it to save humanity from itself and to sacrifice itself - to die and never rise again.

Given the scenario, it would make sense for humanity not to attack the friendly robot.

FYI I'm an atheist, so Pro's single sentence claim is w/o merit.

Vote Con, Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


religion is suicide


My opponent says "religion is suicide" which is irrelevant to the debate.

When it comes to morality, the sacrifice of the individual to benefit the group, is seen as a morality righteous act.

For example, George Washington could have maintained his power to remain president, but he let go of such things for the betterment of the US.

I now refer to the video provided (a classic of American media); a single soldier stays behind to hold off the enemy advance, allowing for his comrades to survive. Ones own life is the most valuable thing to have, to surrender such for anther, with no guarantee of reward, trust in ones species, such verifiable post modem faith - its a standard we should all strive for. Pro has yet to reproach such humanistic appeal.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
TY - FJ (nac)
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
nice try, i give you that
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
Posted by Bennett91 2 years ago
Blindness is a matter of perspective. We wait for the voter to decide. But if you want to carry on the debate into the chat section, despite not putting it in the debate section - fine.

If that wooden smiley face is is symbol of greater progress/humanity, the individual sacrifice to save it is that more meaningful given the lack of in life rewards. As I said, giving up our more precious value despite no guarantee of reward is seen by mortals as a moral value to strive for. I guess that includes robots too.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
what about heroicly saving a wooden log with a smiley face at the kost of your life
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
bit blind to the obvius are we
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
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: The question of the debate is to whether or not it is reasonable to engage in a course of action, against what is described as a superior yet "friendly" entity. Con then goes on to answer such a question in a succinct manner by describing to "ethos", or what this voter is taking as a MO based on how Pro defined its (the robot's) behavior. From there, I am not able to follow Pro's short rebuttals, or to what impact they should have. Con's outline of what is sensible (not attacking) seems the most rational course based on the friendly demeanor. This goes uncontested, as such, points to Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.