morality=survival truth
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Bennett91
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 1/7/2017 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 648 times | Debate No: | 98767 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)
 Pro  Con 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. |
 |
|
Pro Con 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. |
 |
|
Pro Con 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) http://www.youtube.com...; 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. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
| vi_spex | Bennett91 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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.
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.