The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 72098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




if gravity was much more, floati, it wouldnt be immoral to push some one of a Cliff, they would just float out there.. so reality determines morality, even thou i have a choice of being immoral or moral, i do not choose what is moral and immoral


Opening Statement:

I am PatrickTheWise, this is my first debate on Debate.Org. I will be representing the idea that there are specific concrete moralities that are apparent to us as cognitive beings. Before I delve into my initial arguments I would like to thank the instigator of this debate, vi_spex, for posing something that is actually contestable. Thank you.

Opening Counter:
"[If gravity were less intense, it wouldn't be immoral to push someone off a cliff...]"
This statement suggests that the only way to determine morality is based of the consequences of an individuals actions. Meaning that because the person who is pushed doesn't fall to their death, the pusher is not as immoral as a if a 'pushee' had died. The significance of this is that it lays the concept of morality outside of humanity.

Cognition, is defined as, "the ability to develop knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". We, as humans, rely solely on cognition in order to develop any and all concepts that we have about reality. Without it we would not be able to form societies or the rules of etiquette within these societies. These rules of etiquette being what morality is. The distinction between right and wrong.

Cognition may also become deranged from societal standards. This is where we see those that we call dysfunctional. Human beings tend act in accordance with what they deem as individuals is the correct or "good" course of action and generally this follows the societal norm. However when we see the morally deranged act, they too are still within the confines of "good" morality within their own minds. All actions we take seem justified and good until proven wrong, this is how cognition works. Society is required to establish means of creating these normative moralities.

Reality is being used in your opening statement as a description of the physical natural world, without consideration to human cognition. This is a non sequitur because without the consideration of human involvement and cognition morality could not exist.

Your morality is not innate, it is taught to you by the society that you are raised into. So while you maintain that you as an individual do not choose what is moral or immoral, you do however belong to a society that chose what morality and immorality look like.

I will await your response and look forward to rebutting it.
Debate Round No. 1


information exist beyond space and time, not real, morality is not real, i can not grab it with my hand, but it is guided by absolutes, therfore it is absolute

just like you cant love, without it ending in pain at some point, because you have to let go again

its basic reasoning.. you would not be to happy with me if i push you off a cliff but luckily you survive, wouldnt you be pissed if not on your way to push me of? you know.. if you had gotten supermans power over night it would be fairly more resonable for me to push you of, like with the floati gravity

to determine morality, i must determine what is resonable, which means i must know logic

i know it is resonable for me to keep my eyes open if i want to read on till the end of this sentence, as i cant read these words on the screen with my eyes closed, cause and effect(absolute, you cant argue with this)


logic+experience of it=reason(concept, simulation of logic)

reason+intent=morality=contrasting self with others úsing thought and emotion

right and wrong is reason, i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent, like a rock has no intent, so morality is reason and intent, cause and effect

belief=unresonable=mentally enslaved
knowledge=resonable=free will
for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast


belief and knowledge is the opposite of know(physical experience of now, see no equal sign here) :)

the law of the land is human made, its fiction unless its based on absolutes

nature flows in the path of least resistance. lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one



I am going to use this space to dismantle your statements in an organized fashion by posting an initial quotation, then offering a rebuttal to that statement of your speech. These may be slightly paraphrased to make them easier to read.

1. "Information exists beyond space and time, not real, morality is also not real. I cannot grab it with my hand, but is guided by absolutes and is therefore absolute."
1.a. This statement is a non sequitur. Information, is facts provided or learned about something or someone. This is what information is. How can information exist outside of space and time if nothing exists outside of space and time. Information does not physically manifest, this is why you cannot grab it. However you can find evidence for the existence of information everywhere in human societies, because information is a human invention of cognition. Morality and Information differ greatly on this point however. Information is a concept that seeks factual hard data. Morality is a social construct to regulate societal cohesion.

2. "You would not be happy if I pushed you off a cliff, but luckily you survive."
2.a. If we lived in your lessened gravity alternate existence, why would I be unhappy? This is a rhetorical question. In the moral construct that we exist in, in the United States, it is immoral to act on another person in a way that removes their freedom of choice. Meaning that the morality of the cliff scenario has nothing to do with whether or not I am safe or unsafe in the push, it has to do with your actions clashing with the ideal morality that we have in our society; you pushing me against my will.

3. "It is more reasonable to push superman off a cliff than a regular person."
3.a. Though each action has a separate consequence, the immorality of the situation falls upon the actor not the outcome. You are suggesting that the death can be moral or immoral.
You cannot describe thing as moral or immoral, example: "It is an immoral brick". This does not make sense.
Morality needs much human context to make sense, example: "It is immoral for you to throw a brick." This contains the ego to ascribe the ability to get morality but this still lacks the societal context required to determine culturally decided morality.
Correct example: "It is immoral for you to throw bricks at children." This is important because you could find a country or civilization that actually thinks that simply throwing bricks is immoral. Just as the Japanese think wearing shoes indoors is immoral.

4. "Cause and effect is logic."
4.a. This is false. Cause and effect are the principles of causality. Logic is the cognitive process implemented by the human mind to infer patterns from previous experiences of causality. You're positing that logic exists outside of human cognition which is not the case.

5. "Logic and experience is reason"
5.a. Reason also simply the ability to deduce effect without applying cause. Basically imagination.

6. "Reason and intent is morality."
6.a. Why 4-6 don't work:
Cause: "When I don't eat"
Effect: "My tummy hurts."
Causal linking: " When I don't eat, my tummy hurts."
Solution: "So I eat so my tummy wont hurt."
Morality? " I feel physically better when I eat, therefore it is morally good when I eat."

7. "Belief is unreasonable"
7.a. This assertion is false. You are ignoring the 3 basic assumptions of epistemology.

8. "Knowledge is reasonable"
8.a. This statement is nonsense because knowledge is the human cataloging of factual data from reality, reason is the ability of extrapolate variables to reach plausible conclusions.

Now I will go into personal thought and pose my own argument even though it should seem clear from what is said above.
(I'm going to break this down as simply as I can)

Information, knowledge and cognition are all concepts that would apply to existence whether or not we exist with the confines of that existence. This is because the information and knowledge that is recorded about existence is factual and true from our ability to perceive reality. An example of knowledge is that there exists one star in our solar-system. Factual, objective and observation, there no means of misinterpreting this data provided you know the language.

Cognition of factual knowledge is very different from cognition of cultural knowledge. We as human beings have developed habits and have become centralized around strong civilizations. For instance Asian cultures differ greatly from Western European cultures. We do perceive all of our factual knowledge about existence similarly however, Japan and the United Kingdom both agree that there is only one star in our solar-system. A big cultural difference is that it is acceptable and even encouraged to wear one's shoes in another person's residence or until given permission to remove them. In Japan it is very discourteous for a person to wear shoes in another person's residence. These are examples of morality. While a culture has shaped moralities that are more specific to their region several moralities are shared among many cultures. In many cultures it is unacceptable to kill people, this is because it is very detrimental to the structure of society and causes a lot of pain for people who have become cognitively attached to the murder victims. These are known as universal moralities, but they too are shaped by the developments that humanity has made as a whole. For instance, did you know that just 2,000 - 1,500 years ago it was encouraged to murder people for believing in a different religion than your own? This was a shared moral belief by cultures all throughout the world and is still implemented to this day by some cultures even though the vast majority of mankind discourages this. As you can see from these examples, and from any other example you can create, morality can only exist within the confines of mankind.
Debate Round No. 2


facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter

information is nothing, 0, like you can pick up 0 sodas from the floor, but you can understand that you cant even thou 0 sodas can never exist in reality

information is the opposite of matter, mental and physical, 0 and 1

matter is true, but its also true that lies exist

experience is the balancing point between matter and information, experience is matter and information, i did not invent information, like logic, i did not invent reason(depending on how you mean). memory is reason, i do not have a choice but to be able to remember, or i will cease to exist

concepts are information, but information is much more then a concept. the future and past is information, not real

if you float of the cliff i dont know why you would be unhappy, unless you really dont want to be on the bottom.. i dont know, it is very simple thou..

im not talking about safe or unsafe, im saying its immoral based on logic, cause and effect, if you float of the cliff it is more resonable for me to push you then if you fall and splat, more moral, no?

if i push you off a cliff to kill you it has many consequences, even if i never get caught

i already said, morality is not an object, it is nothing, guided by something, logic.

if you go back and read my examples you will se i already said a stone has no intent, therfore can not be immoral. if i pick it up and bach you over the head because i want to see blood squirting, i am not resonable

logic is matter, reason is information, opposites

physical experience is logic, there is no logic in fantasy

thinking has many effects, emotional for one, and there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy

your number 6 example is a demonstration of reason and logic, not morality

belief is unresonable as belief is false, belief is theism, all evil that can possibly exist

your number 7 example, you say knowledge is non sense, which is correct, reason is non sense, sensory experience is logic. only sensory experience is true, matter

information=false and truth=imagination and memory=0
matter=true=physical experience=1

know is true, knowledge is truth, and belief is false. belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it, kNow=now

i have no data in my mind, data is physical, information is mental

i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it. imagination is false, and truth is memory of know


not future and past



I will respond the same format I that I did in the last section.

1. "Facts are in the past, the past doesn't matter, now is what matters."
1.a. I wasn't aware that in a debate, that we could basically just assert anything as fact. Here is my response:
"Your statement is subjective."

2. "Information is nothing..."
2.a. This isn't true at all. A concept is something. Not a physical something, but it is something.

3."... Like you can never pick up 0 sodas from the floor...."
3.a. This is a strawman fallacy.

4. "Information is the opposite of matter, mental and physical, 0 and 1."
4.a. Opposition of things is a subjective, cognition of patterning. It has not bearing on the validity of your argument and it is sophistry to suggest that it does.

5. "Matter is true, but it is also true that lies exist."
5.a. This is meaningless.

6. "Experience is the balancing point between matter and information..."
6.a. No it isn't.

7. "Memory is reason, I do not have a choice but to be able to remember, or I will cease to exist."
7.a. Okay. Cease to exist meaning death? How do people with memory loss or brain dysfunction live then?
Cease as in degrade in your ability to be a cognitive human being. How would you know unless you perceived reality from the position of a person that had no capabilities of memory.

8. "Information is much more than a concept."
8.a. I'll clarify that we are using the philosophical definition of concept which means "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects."

9. "If you float off the cliff it is more reasonable for me to push you than if you were to fall and die. More moral?"
9.a. No the concept of morality is deeper than that. Just to break it down, again.
Morality is the difference between right and wrong.
If you do something culturally unacceptable, that makes it wrong/immoral.
If we live in America with low gravity, and American's don't like being pushed off cliffs, then it is still wrong/immoral.
If we live in a low gravity country where it is acceptable to push people off cliffs, then it is right/moral
Do you understand?

10. "If I pick it a stone and hit you in the head with it because I want to see blood..."
10.a. This is where you are muddying the lines. As the assailant in this scenario, you are acting within reason in your mind. "I want to see blood, I'll hit him with a rock." This is an application of a solution to achieve your goal. What I have explained so far in this paragraph as NOTHING to do with morality. To incorporate morality, I have to ask you, as a 21st century person living in a civilized country that probably thinks murder is wrong, if the actions of the assailant are right or wrong. We tend to assume that the actions of the assailant in this scenario are wrong, because we understand that murder is wrong.

11. "know is true . . . belief is false . . . belief = be lie. . . kNow = now."
11.a. Word games don't validate your arguments. Sorry.

12. "I have no data in my mind. . ."
12.a. This is obvious.
Debate Round No. 3


truth can only be in the past, now is true, and the future is false
facts are subjective, how about that
matter is the opposite of information, matter is something, true, know
if you cut open a head, and take out the brain, you cant poor the information, mind out on the floor, so they are not things, they are nothing
physical is the opposite of mental, something is physical
number 3, is no strawman.. you dont know what a strawman is, i havnt refered to anytihng you said so by default has nothing to do with a strawman. pick up 0 sodas from the floor, just prove me wrong and do it
hot is the opposite of cold, not necessarily subjects
everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist
so matter is true is meaningless, while lies dosnt exist... cool, religion dosnt exist i guess, or are all religions true?
my eyes are not matter and my thoughts are not information? you just search for that balance of having eyes
without memory i have no free will. if truth ceases, so does true and false
know is absolute, i know i have an imagination, even thou i can never physically experience it, and know is physical experience, and physical experience is absolute.
if i am with you, and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, and this is true, you cant argue with that
but if concepts means that definiton of concept you give in number 8, then concept means reason, which is false, cONcept, past is off, future is on, now is.
C=to be seeing with the third eye, my ability to see, or like my glasses is like a c i use to see through
E=energy=positive negative and balance
man, you just said, morality is the differene between right and wrong. is it right to push me of the cliff if i fall and splat? and is it wrong if i just float?(sure you can say i didnt want to float out there but this is an example.. i can make a simpler if it is to compliacted, which i think its not..) is it right to feed your kid battery acid if there are no laws?
to say that people determine morality is no different then saying god determines morality, whatever god
whatever people imagine to be right and wrong is irrelveant, imaginaton is false, and belief is unresonable, operating on false is a problem, lack of options
logic determines wheather or not it is resonable for you to push me off the cliff, thats why i change the logic in there, to a floati gravity which is to change the cause and effect relation therby making it right, not wrong and not immoral to push me of the cliff
laws has no bearing on morality....... you can make a completly immoral law, it is irrelevant, it is fiction, like coüntries are fiction

10. "If I pick it a stone and hit you in the head with it because I want to see blood..."
this is wrong... on many levels, not just murder. there has to be something wrong with me for me to think like this, it goes against all logic, as it is unresonable, illogical, belief, fantasy cause
there is no intent, behind belief, as it is unresonable. it means belief inform my actions thoughts and emotions, and i have no free will, as i can not reason
it might take reason, for me to bash your head in with the rock, as in i have to be able to reason, but it is not by my intent, like a sickness in the mind i do not intend it, and i would cease to exist thinking like that, get locked up, not carrying on my genes, etc


1. "Facts are subjective"
Facts are not subjective. That is what makes them factual. You are essentially rejecting logic by saying this. If facts are subjective then everything that you are arguing is not based on anything other than opinion. I suppose you are right about the strawman, it was giving your argument more credit than it was due, what you said was just nonsense.

2. "Objective opposites"
Hot is a subject, it puts a temperature in relation to another temperature that is normal or not hot. Another example of this is 1 is an enormous number if you are counting by millionths. Suggesting that hot is objectively the opposite of cold is the same as saying that -300 degrees Fahrenheit is the opposite of absolute zero. One is excessively elevated in temperature compared to the other.

3."Everything that exists has an opposite"
What is the opposite of milk? Don't say cheese.

4. "Cliff"
What makes the cliff scenario moral or immoral is the push not the outcome. If pushing is immoral, then it is immoral to push even if no one dies.

5. "Last paragraph"
The phrasing of your last paragraph you make it clear that you have no concept or flexibility to understand the simple misunderstandings you have about human cognition or morality. You aren't debating, you are simply spouting off some slanted misconception that you have.
Debate Round No. 4


facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now

fact=past observation

sounds not to similar from memory does it.. and memory is not sharable, i can at best BELIEve what people tell me, as i have to imagine it

religion=to rely on, while self is one

burn yourself on hot water in your imagiantion, doh

hot.. is.. the opposite cold... what are the other options.....

im not sure what the opposite of milk is.. to high level for me

it is the outcome of the push and the push....... you are trying to remove the effect of the cause, dosnt work, absolute. effect can not exist without cause

if you accidentally push him then obivusly its not intended


if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear. show me a bear skin that dosnt come from a bear.. you will impress me, and constructs are machines not nature, try again

you have had no succesfull counter so far, not even 1


I yield my time in round 5 to expedite this to the voting period of this debate.

Thank you for initiating this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
forgot to respond to 11 and 12.

no Word games, you can not be a lie without belief
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
arg, in your number 8 example, not 7*
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago

im not sure what concede means
Posted by PatrickTheWise 3 years ago
You let me know when you want to concede.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
in or out
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
hm, logic is exterior, there is no logic in fantasy, where as morality is internal
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
i dont know cant, but there is a big difference to giving a child a poisonous apple, and a normal apple, while being aware what the apples are and what is going to happen if the child eats it

morality is guided by resonable, resonable is guided by logic

logic is the Measurement of resonable
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
So, you couldn't even make it through a comment without the equals sign.

That's why I questioned where you were coming from. It sounds like you are saying morals are exterior to you.

Sounds like you are going towards Kant - categorical imperative.
Posted by vi_spex 3 years ago
cause and effect is logic
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro relies on theses (plural of thesis) and equations to debate morality, while con provides literary arguments. Con's arguments were more literal than Pro's which is very important, because of how easier it is to understand. Pro also had poor spelling and some poor grammar, but Con kept his nice and orderly, with not as many misspellings. This was a great first argument for Con.
Vote Placed by simonstuffles 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better grammar throughout. Con rebutted Pro's nonsensical arguments. No sources were used.