The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
123chess456 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 100213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




no king is knife resistant, no king is a god


I would like to begin by saying thanks to my opponent for the productive debate opportunity, of which I am sure he put much effort into. Secondly, we must consider the fundamental premise of this debate, the assertion that "morality = survival truth".

Whereas, morality shall be defined as a system of distinguishing "right" and "wrong", two concepts only able to be defined in relation to morality. And we can therefore assume that the proposal enclosed in the title of this argument is that there is an objective system of morality, with no qualifiers, simplying being defined as "survival truth".

What is "survival truth", you might ask? It is the truth of survival. While sounding like a trivial rearranging of the words, this exposes much meaning, such that surviving, and therefore living, is an objective truth. Theresuch, the objective truth of your survival is the only true definition of morality. Thus being, your objective life is the definition of morality. This means that we can exclude all subjectivity to being relevant to morality. Even subjective life.

Therein lies the crux of my opponents argument: "no king is knife resistant, no king is a god". What did he mean by this? Well, "no king is knife resistant" simply refers to two things:
  1. A king
  2. The property of knife resistance

We must dissect the assumption that my opponent is trying to challenge, that such a king may be knife resistant. And therein lies the main theme of this debate today.

No matter how powerful you may be as a mortal, no matter the subjective value you have to others, objectively, this king may die anyways despite this subjective value. Subjective value has no bearing on your objective life, and is objective life is objective value, it can be inferred theresuch that objective value is not determined by any sort of subjective value you have.

And thereafter lies the profound words: "no king is a god".

A god is a figure of worship, a god is something that has no objective presence in our world. Gods cannot be perceived, at least in the Judeo-Christian manifestation of the omnipotent, and thus its value derives from subjectivity. The subjectivity of perception, that subjectivity of others viewing the god through their own eyes. And a king is no god, a mortal cannot have his subjective value be all that he is. My opponent asserts that the objective value takes precedence over the subjective, as a king can never be a god.

Therein lies the fallacy that I shall win this debate upon. That being, the inherent omnipresence of ourselves throughout time and space.

Objectively, we can determine whether something is alive in the current moment. However, looking at a broader view of the timeline, we can see that everything has been alive at some point if it is alive. Everything, every speck of matter, every single material and objective item will necessarily have to have been a part of some system considered "living", as the infinite size of the universe and the infinite span of time conclude, as every possibility will be exhausted when an infinite amount of time is considered, as stated by the famous monkey typewriter problem.

We can therefore say that, since morality is defined as an objective concept, and time is subjective, morality is timeless. And if morality is timeless, we must consider all time equal in terms of morality. Theresuch lies my argument. Everything could be considered alive for a fraction of the infinite time in the universe, and a fraction of infinity is infinity. Therefore, everything has been alive for an infinite period of time. And if everything is alive, and morality depends on your objective state of being alive, everything is either "right", or "wrong", depending on whether being alive is "good", or "bad".

And there lies meaninglessness. Morality is a duality, it must distinguish right and wrong. There must be a wrong to compare a right to, a good to compare a bad to. And in the overall reference frame of all matter in the universe, declaring everything good xor bad destroys the entire meaning of morality, as there is now nothing to distinguish. If we follow the central question, the central proposal of this debate to its conclusion, we can see that morality becomes meaninglessness. Because the morality will cease to distinguish anything, and such, the whole premise of this debate becomes meaningless. We can't set morality to be equivalent to something when that causes morality to be meaningless. Because you're not setting morality to anything. You're just destroying it.

Maybe the Bible disagrees with me though. After all: "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." As the king of this debate, I can't be God. But perhaps, maybe I can quote what he did.

Debate Round No. 1


" dont think right and wrong dosnt necessarily presuppose morality.. but whatever

yes truth of survival..

survival is balance

truth can only be in the past

life IS true.. truth=objective=math=knowledge=fact=memory

the no king is a god statement is more of a, as far as i know position.. and not necessarily to state that a king can never be a god

time is true, not subjective.. like i run faster when i get out of water on the beach and onto the shore


rocks are not alive, not sure why you think rocks can be considered alive, moral or immoral?

you can believe the bible is immoral, then what.. that is destroying morality, to believe in a book without evidence.. while my argument stands undefeatable

any religion can claim like you they are moral, while not knowing.. is slavery moral? so it is written in your book, how about forcing a girl to marry her rapist? the book dosnt tell us anything about what is moral or immoral but merly commands it, which is non sense


The central tenet of my argument has still not been rebutted. Truth can be in the future, as well as the past. We just cannot observe the future. Time is not an element of space or matter, it is its own dimension. The only truth of time is that we are in the present, a tautological statement. And to my opponent's argument that truth can only be in the past, we cannot observe the past, so how we can determine an objective truth from such? We cannot observe the past with certainty (we can only make inferences from light), and we cannot observe the future. There is only a present we can determine. But "we can determine" is essentially the definition of subjectivity. The present is subjective to only the people involved in it, thus the only truth we can see is subjective.
Therefore, with no objective truth, there can be no objective morality, as objective morality is just a subset of truth.
Another alternative reason why con wins.
Debate Round No. 2


truth can only be in the past, truth is knowledge, knowledge is known.. and future is unknown

time is space and matter

cant be honest about now without a past
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.