Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

The Laws of Morality Prove Creator

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Ramshutu
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 3
Description
I encourage to look for sources to prove me wrong, but the sources cannot be used in the debate. People tend to write one or two sentences make a claim and then ask you to read a long source. So no sources allowed written in the debate. Do your research then come back to me. You have a week!
Round 1
Published:
I. Morality in the Worldview of Evolution

In the evolutionary worldview there is no logical reason to believe in moral imperatives. Right and wrong are nothing but electro-chemical reactions in the brain — the result of time and chance. The concept of right and wrong is meaningful, however, so evolution cannot be true. Right and wrong are Christian concepts that started in Genesis. This is not saying that Evolutionists are not moral, but they are moral because Creation is true. 
If the Bible is not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?

II. Morality in the Christian Worldview
The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), and thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.
Published:
0.) Plagurism / Rule violation

Pro has plagiarized his entire round verbatim from an external source, in this case from the book

The Ultimate Proof of Creation: resolving the origins debate By Dr. Jason Lisle

Not only is this behaviour is fundamentally dishonest and lazy; but also unattributed arguments like this can result in copyright issues, and liability for the website. Voters should recognize that pros attempt to pass off another argument as his own, should not be accepted, and voters should treat pro as not having provided an opening argument as a result.

In addition pro has violated his own rule by providing citations for sources: in this case the  Bible. This constitutes a rule violation on pros part, who explicitly prohibited the use of sources. As pro did not provide allowance for non-link citations of a source: this constitutes a rule violation.

1.) There is no such thing as “moral law”.

Right and wrong as principles are partly learned behaviours taught and instilled by parents; and partly down to humans and other mammals being able to inherently sense empathy, and view the world from the needs and wants of another.

This is why we often blame the parents if a child does something horrible - for not teaching them the difference from right and wrong : it’s why those who cannot feel empathy : psychopaths are viewed as different from those who are simply bad - it’s why almost all mass genocides (Rwanda, Nazis, etc) were proceeded by attempts to dehumanize and thus prevent the society from empathizing with them.

Thus some ubiquitous moral law simply does not exist.

2.) Evolutionary imperative

Despite pros book saying that there is no evolutionary purpose for morality; this is grotesquely and obviously false.

If you have a small social group where an individual starts murdering people in that social group for their own benefit - it harms the group, and is more likely for that group not to survive.

Thus, when social creatures first evolve, they would only be successful long term if there was a way of preventing overtly selfish behaviour that was detrimental to the group.

Thus, morality and empathy have a key evolutionary purpose, and would be positively selected for in social groups.






Round 2
Published:
"1.) There is no such thing as 'moral law'"
So I am going to presume that you are saying that morality is subjective. If it is subjective then how do you know murder is wrong? Maybe it is right? Maybe murder in certain circumstances is right? If you do not have objective morality then murder could be a good thing, depending on what your objective is. Also lying could be useful to survive in the workplace at the home or other circumstances. If morality is subjective then who is to say anything is really wrong. It could be right for you, but not for me.
Also one could totally have a different view of morality than their parents. A parent could teach their child that homosexuality is immoral and the child could change his opinion that it is right. Well, who has the correct morality? And Why? There could be no way of absolutely knowing that in a subjective moral world.

"2.) Evolutionary imperative"
You use the example of murder in society as an example of it not benefiting a society and actually harming it. Let me ask was Nazi Germany harmed for its mass murder of people? How about cannibals their society was never harmed for their practices. What about the Aztecs? Or Mao, or Stalin? All these places were not harmed for their mass genocide.
Published:
0.) Plagurism.

Pro completely drops the charge of plagiarism. Pro also does not even acknowledge that he dishonestly copy and pasted someone else’s arguments in R1.

As pro has not offered an argument to support his position, pro has not met his burden of proof.

1.) No such thing as moral law

Morality is learned and based on an individuals ability to empathize: both of which can be changed and modified. Pro does not contest these points, or the evidence I provided to support it.

As morality is based on empathy, many decisions are largely sensible and the same for all humans  (we don’t want to be murdered, so empathy implies we will find murder to be wrong).

There are limits to this: murder is okay in self defence, in parts of military operations, and the murder of innocents is okay if an intentional bombing campaign accidentally kills people. Even murdering babies - killing a random baby is bad, killing baby hitler, probably not so much : this is to say that even in the case of murder that pro argues is universally bad is quite obviously a complex moral topic that everyone differs upon.

Pro claims that in a subjective system that there is no objective way to determine whether any individual morality is better then any other.

In presupposing that there is an objective way to determine one morality is better than other, pro is begging the very question he must prove as part of the resolution.

Pro cannot presuppose his moral law into existence; if pro feels there is an objective moral law that can be used to tell whether my morality is better or worse than yours: pro should explain what it is, how he can tell it’s valid, and how it is separate and distinct from any individual humans subjective morality. 

2.) Evolutionary imperative

In the last round I showed a valid evolutionary benefit of morality.

Pro asks : “You use the example of murder in society as an example of it not benefiting a society and actually harming it. Let me ask was Nazi Germany harmed for its mass murder of people? How about cannibals their society was never harmed for their practices. What about the Aztecs? Or Mao, or Stalin? All these places were not harmed for their mass genocide.”

None of these examples are the small social groupings of animals, in which murder, or disruptive behaviour within the group would lead to potential collapse of the entire group and the death or harm of its members - and thus would present an evolutionary imperative.

Thus pros argument is really a straw man, as it is dealing with a misrepresentation of my position (that any murder will harm any society and thus must be immoral, rather than that murder in a small group can harm that group and provides evolutionary pressure for morality).

Pro does however shoot himself in the foot: The aztecs, Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Cannibals and the immoral behaviour of people is all largely explained by my thesis:

If morality was objective and universal - humans almost all invariably and repeatedly acted immorally knowing that their behaviour and actions were wrong, which does not explain how so many people over such a long period could all act so ubiquitously immoral, only for us now to have managed to work out what we should do.

If morality is subjective and mutable, good people can easily be driven to bad actions by the ability to suppress or suspend empathy against another group - leading to both moral changes over time, and cases where a society may commit atrocities.

Thus it appears clearly the case that morality looks as if it is inherently subjective and not caused by some objective moral edict coming from an external entity.






Round 3
Published:
"1.) No such thing as moral law"
"murder is okay in self defence, in parts of military operations, and the murder of innocents is okay if an intentional bombing campaign accidentally kills people."
These examples are not actually murder Con just needs to read any dictionary to find that out.

If morals are subjective then there is no reason to have courts of law, because after all one is determining ones own sets of morals. Therefore I can murder or lie in order to get what I want or need to survive. If I need $1000 why not murder people and get what I need? If I am taken to court I just say that survival of the fittest was the reason I murdered.

However, with the God of the Bible, murder is always wrong, for it is taking the life of someone who does not deserve to die. Lying is wrong, no matter the circumstance.

"2.) Evolutionary imperative"
Evolution deals with material things, so my question is how much does hate weigh? Or how long is love measured by? 

I also want to say that in small social groupings of animals say in the jungles of Africa, actually do murder other animals in order to get food. 

Why did humans decide to act cooperatively when evolution is supposed to be about survival of the fittest? Also why does man still need to act cooperatively instead of fitting his way to survive? Or is survival of the fittest off the evolutionary grid?
Published:
0.) Plagiarism / Rule violation.

Pro still has not addressed either his plagiarism, and violation of his own rules.

Pro has still not shown his burden of proof an demonstrated A.) that objective moral laws exist, and B.) why it necessitates a creator.

1.) No such thing as Moral Law.
“If morals are subjective then there is no reason to have courts of law, because after all one is determining ones own sets of morals. Therefore I can murder or lie in order to get what I want or need to survive. If I need $1000 why not murder people and get what I need? If I am taken to court I just say that survival of the fittest was the reason I murdered.”

Pro makes a straw man here: confusing morality being subjective, with morality being meaningless.

Just because we derive our morality from learning and empathy, does not mean we do not make moral judgements, or we don’t  hold others to our standard, or mean that we do not band together to make judgements as a group. Nor does it mean that societies have not agreed that aspects of our subjective morality has value to us and therefore should be enforced to some degree by the state in courts. 

Pros implication that the above is somehow not true is frankly absurd.

The reason such rampages are immoral is not that there is some universal edict being forced on us from outside; but because most of our society shares common upbringing, common social values, and experience empathy in similar ways that leads to a similar (but not identical) sense of morality that we all see practical value in enforcing based on that subjective morality.

Pro also seemingly ignores history and culture; which emphatically proves my case.

800 years ago there was no laws prohibiting duelling murders, executing people for theft was fine; slavery was largely no problem. Murder and rape of your enemies was largely accepted and went unpunished. Today homosexuals are hung in some countries, honour killings are considered valid; and not so long ago it was considered fine to carpet bomb entire cities killing untold thousands of innocents..

I view such actions as immoral based upon my own subjective morality - shared by most others in my society. People who held this morality in the past would likely view my behaviour and objection to their behaviour as inherently immoral too; for their own reasons.

There is no inherently objective standard to declare one is wrong and the other is right: we can only say they’re wrong if we weigh them by our own subjective moral standard.

This is an uncomfortable, and unpleasant thought: but what is true is not influenced on what we would like to be true. Importantly whether or not these actions are objectively wrong (which pro must prove) - they are still wrong to us.


“However, with the God of the Bible, murder is always wrong, for it is taking the life of someone who does not deserve to die. Lying is wrong, no matter the circumstance.”

Pro is using the bible as an objective moral standard; which he claims shows murder is always wrong...

Except in the example of The children and unborn in Sodam and Gomorrah, and the flood, the first born sons of egypt, the Cannanites, the Amelkites, the Children mauled by bears for mocking Elijah, lots wife, jobs family, Er and Onan - Judah’s Sons, the egyptian army (arguably just following orders), Israelites that were burned for complaining, Israelites that were killed by the plague for complaining, having sex, worshipping Baal, etc, the ammorites, jeroboams son, king Ahziah, Jeroboam, Jehoram and ezekhials wife (and tens of thousands more). This is not even mentioning cases like Job, where innocent people were simply tortured.

The bible is full of multiple genocides, sexual slavery, rape and murders commanded by God - not all of whom could possibly have deserved to die or be harmed.

In fact the behaviour of God in the Old Testament was almost literally the behaviour pro listed above when objecting to a subjective morality.

As a result of this, if God commanded things that pro claims are objectively immoral; there is clearly no objective moral standard present in the bible - there is barely even a rational moral Standard in the bible.

Finally: Pro still has not offered any evidence of how he can tell the moral values human beings hold are objectively valuable outside the humans that hold them.

Pro should demonstrate that an objective moral code actually exists by explaining exactly how he can objectively determine one moral system is better than another: if pro cannot so this, he effectively conceded there is no objective basis to reality - and thus conceded the debate.

2.) Evolutionary imperative.

Pro drops almost the entire case. Again. I extend.

As far as is known, love and hate are both inherent emotional responses within humans, that are based upon communicating neurones triggering a variety of different hormone and neural responses.

Love, triggers a variety of hormones relating to changes in the body that drive arousal. Hate triggers a variety of hormones that drive Adrenalin and fighting responses. 

Neither appear to be anything other than material responses. If pro has evidence to the contrary, he should share it.
“I also want to say that in small social groupings of animals say in the jungles of Africa, actually do murder other animals in order to get food. “
Straw man: animals kill animals outside their social group all the time - evolutionary imperative applies strictly within individual group.  Killing and eating a gazelle does not in any way negatively impact the functioning of a small social group.
“Why did humans decide to act cooperatively when evolution is supposed to be about survival of the fittest? Also why does man still need to act cooperatively instead of fitting his way to survive? Or is survival of the fittest off the evolutionary grid?”

Multiple individuals working together can kill bigger prey, do better evading or defending against predators, defend larger areas of territory, pool resources, build stronger shelter, and do not substantially lose effectiveness as a group if an individual or two are temporarily ill or injured.

As a result: multiple individuals cooperating can be “fitter” than the individuals working alone.

Conclusion:

Pro must show that a universal, objective moral law exists. So far pro has merely asserted that it does: which is insufficient to meet his burden.

Pro must also provide an argument as to why this objective moral law necessitates a creator. Pro has not provided any argument to this either.

Conversely: I have shown a subjective source of morality in learned behaviour and empathy, that there is an evolutionary imperative for such things to exist, and therefore I have refuted the resolution.




Round 4
Published:
"1.) No such thing as Moral Law."
We can know that the Moral Law exists because it is undeniable. Everyone knows that murder is wrong, even in the most remote of places that had no contact with civilization. Everyone has moral values. Also, we know there is a Moral Law based on our reaction when a Moral Law is violated. All people everywhere have a sense and knowledge of right and wrong. There would be no human rights without a Moral Law. This can be seen when Jefferson wrote that all men have the same unalienable rights given by the Creator. Even the Nazi soldiers who were convicted of mass murder were charged by Moral Laws. All people must know the Moral Law in order to know what is just and unjust. We can only know what is evil because we know what is good and this good is written in our hearts. Only if there is an unchanging standard of good, a universal Moral Law, can we know what good is. We could not judge others morals if there is no Moral Law. In other words, we could not say that what Mother Teresa did was good and what Hitler did was bad because these would be just personal opinions if there is no Moral Law. We could not know the difference between right and wrong without a Moral Law. Political and social dissent could not be based on morals if there is no Moral Law because there would be no objective right or wrong including the positions taken by the Left. Also is there was no Moral Law we could not make excuses for violating it. If no behavior is moral, then why make excuses for it. 

"800 years ago there was no laws prohibiting duelling murders, executing people for theft was fine; slavery was largely no problem. Murder and rape of your enemies was largely accepted and went unpunished. Today homosexuals are hung in some countries, honour killings are considered valid; and not so long ago it was considered fine to carpet bomb entire cities killing untold thousands of innocents..

I view such actions as immoral based upon my own subjective morality - shared by most others in my society. People who held this morality in the past would likely view my behaviour and objection to their behaviour as inherently immoral too; for their own reasons.

There is no inherently objective standard to declare one is wrong and the other is right: we can only say they’re wrong if we weigh them by our own subjective morastandard."

Con is confusing what is with what ought to be. What society has done in the past is subject to change, but what they ought to have done is not. Let us take slavery. Just because they did it in the past does not mean that it is what they ought to have been doing. Slavery, was wrong in the past as it is still wrong today and as it will still be wrong in the future. Why? Because the Moral Law never changes, it is absolute.

"Pro is using the bible as an objective moral standard; which he claims shows murder is always wrong...

Except in the example of The children and unborn in Sodam and Gomorrah, and the flood, the first born sons of egypt, the Cannanites, the Amelkites, the Children mauled by bears for mocking Elijah, lots wife, jobs family, Er and Onan - Judah’s Sons, the egyptian army (arguably just following orders), Israelites that were burned for complaining, Israelites that were killed by the plague for complaining, having sex, worshipping Baal, etc, the ammorites, jeroboams son, king Ahziah, Jeroboam, Jehoram and ezekhials wife (and tens of thousands more). This is not even mentioning cases like Job, where innocent people were simply tortured.

The bible is full of multiple genocides, sexual slavery, rape and murders commanded by God - not all of whom could possibly have deserved to die or be harmed."

First off, Con has no basis to question God's character since he believes morality is based on a matter of opinion.
Second, Con does not know God's sense of justice and His view of sin. Since God made the Moral Law, He is perfectly right in meeting out the justice that comes as a consequence of breaking His moral law, just like a judge meets out the justice required for breaking laws. That takes care of most of the situations you put out there.
As far as Job, I hope you realize that God did not take His family away, that was clearly Satan that did it.

"genocides, sexual slavery, rape and murders commanded by God"
Please give me example.

Atheism and evolution has only given us more genocides, murder and rape than ever before (i.e., Hitler, racism, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara exct).

Objective Morality and why it Proves there is a God
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

God is needed for an Absolute Moral Law in order to have a consequence for breaking that law. If there is no punishment for rape and murder then why not rape and murder until you get caught. The Columbine shooters murdered believing there was no God to meet out punishment. However, after committing suicide, they were pretty disappointed. If there is no Hell and we are just to live in this life and then go to the ground, if there is no purpose to mt life, then why not rape and murder and cheat in order to get what I want. But, if there is a Hell that punishes the sins I commit here on earth, then I better not commit atrocities and repent of my sin so I can live in eternal paradise where there will be no rape and murders.

"2.) Evolutionary imperative."
"when social creatures first evolve, they would only be successful long term if there was a way of preventing overtly selfish behaviour that was detrimental to the group."
Con is just presuming evolution is true. My belief that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as Cons position. Evolution provides no moral boundaries to constrain peoples actions.

"Love, triggers a variety of hormones relating to changes in the body that drive arousal. Hate triggers a variety of hormones that drive Adrenalin and fighting responses."
One, as far as love, you are talking about it in a sexual sense. The love I am talking about is true love, sacrifice. Also you say love and hate trigger hormones. This may be true, but the question to ask is what triggers love and hate. These are transcendental things, not material.
Published:
0.) Plagiarism Rule violation.

At this point, pro has gone three rounds without addressing this key conduct violation: voters should penalize pro with a conduct violation.

1.) No such thing as “Moral law”

Pro appears to be confused between what subjective and objective morality is; and appears to confuse it with morality being nonexistent.

Subjective morality is feeling that EDM is the best type of music, and that belief comes from a combination of your experiences and learning.

Objective morality is feeling that EDM is the best type of music, and that belief being correct based upon some definitive and external facts.

Morality works in a similar way - simply to a different degree.

Note for this debate, Pro is trying to show this EXTERNAL SOURCE exists.

To this end: pro makes a series of claims:

1.1.) Morality exists, we feel right and wrong, we make moral judgements - proves a moral law exists.

If musical taste is subjective, it would not mean we didn’t feel our favourite music is the best, argue with people about it, try and convince others, or judge other forms of music. Likewise - these things would be still be true if morality is objective.

1.2.) We cannot tell the difference between right and wrong in a subjective system.

This is like saying that if musical taste was objective - humans would not be able to tell good music from bad music.

In a subjective moral system we would still have the concepts of right and wrong - and would be able to differentiate the two.

What pro appears to be doing, is explicitly assuming that what we feel is right and wrong is something more just what our moral values make us feel: that our opinions of right and wrong are objective and absolute.

Given this is the very conclusion pro is trying to justify - pro is assuming his own conclusion and thus is begging the question.

Pro needs to provide evidence and argument as to why “Hitler is wrong” is a inviolable moral absolute - rather than a claim based on our own moral values based on our cultural value system.

1.3.)  “Everyone knows murder is wrong”

Pro claims murder is wrong is a moral absolute - a ubiquitous and unchanging moral command shared even by remote tribes.

As shown in my previous rounds, murder was happily accepted in multiple ways in the past and today depending on who is getting murdered. Those that prosecuted Nazis, did not prosecute the allied commanders who carpet bombed cities. Remote tribes of papa New Guinea and the Nicobar and Andaman Islands famously murder outsiders that try and visit - you can’t visit the latter for that very reason.

Pro himself is quite happy to agree that it was okay for God to murder children, infants and the unborn during the flood; maul them by bears, Etc.

Even in terms of abortion - half of the US views it as morally acceptable to abort unborn children, whilst the other half view it as murder.

As a result - it is a staggeringly false claim that all humans share a single moral standard on murder. We clearly don’t.

1.4.) No evidence of “objective morality”

Humans in different cultures have different moral standards. Throughout history, our moral standard has changed continuously.

Morality changes - humans decided that mass murder is no longer acceptable, or that humans are all fundamentally equal (except for black slaves, for whom it took them a little while longer).

Even today, what humans believes is moral or not is dependent on their religion, how they were brought up and what society they live in.

If morality is learned, and dependent on the ability of humans to empathize - things that can change from generation to generation and be manipulated : one would expect broad differences and chances in morality across time and cultures. We would expect people to be manipulated into happily going along with atrocities; and for the behaviour of different cultures to have completely different standards.

This is what we see.

If an unchanging Moral Law was “written Into our heart”, as pro suggests, then one would expect a universal broadly unchanging moral zeitgeist: with minimal deviation away from the norm throughout history. Genocide, murder, slavery would be viewed just as immoral now as it was 2000 years ago: because the moral source hasn’t changed in that time.

This is not what we see and as a result, moral law clearly cannot exist as pro claims.

In fact - there is not a single difference between morality as we can see it in humanity - and the subjective morality I have suggested.

1.5) Biblical Horror show.

Con has no basis to question God's character since he believes morality is based on a matter of opinion.

Pointing out that God himself violates the very Moral standard that pro asserts is inviolable cuts to the very heart of pros argument: and is completely valid.
“Second, Con does not know God's sense of justice and His view of sin”

Pro spent the entirety of the round telling me how all humans have an objective moral law written into their hearts by which we can truly determine right from wrong.

Now, pro argues that I can’t really tell right from wrong when it comes to Gods justice? This is incoherent.
“He is perfectly right in meeting out the justice that comes as a consequence of breaking His moral law”

Please explain what moral law was broken by the children and infants of the Amelkites - whom God ordered killed.

Please explain why children mocking the prophet Elijah for being bald warranted death?

Please explain the moral laws broke by infants, children and the unborn killed by the flood, or in Sodam and Gomorrah?

What about lots wife; what “objective moral code” is violated by simply looking back?

These actions are all prima facia immoral - God clearly and very obviously violates the moral law pro asserts cannot be violated. 

Pro asks which genocides God carries out or orders: 

The amelkites, the Caananites, arguably the Egyptian first born counts too, Sodam
And Gomorrah and the biblical flood, named off the top of my head.

If Gods genocides weren’t as large as Atheism - it doesn’t make morality objective.

2.) Evolutionary Imperative

Pro has now fully dropped the entire case for evolutionary imperative: I extend across the board.

Instead, pros minor objection to my previous round is predicated on the unsupported bare assertion that love and hate are immaterial.

These claims are not supported by any evidence from Pro, and can be rejected.

Summary:

0.) Pro broke his own rules, and plagiarized his opening round.

1.) Morality as we see it, matches what would be expected if morality were subjective. Pros claims of moral absolutes failed across the board, and are repeatedly violated by his own Gods

2.) Human morality as it is seen today can be simply explained with the application of evolutionary imperative. Pro has dropped this entire case


Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Voting summary.

Conduct

Pro forfeited the last round, plagiarized his opening, failed to acknowledge his lack of attribution, and sources the Bible despite claiming no sources were to be used.

This is clearly poor conduct.

Arguments

I have demonstrated that “Moral law” doesn’t exist, that morality is changeable and different from person to person; even on matters of murder and genocide, there is no clear and definitive law.

I have also shown that morality as observed in humans appears to be subjective and based on a combination of learned values and our ability to empathize. 

I have also shown that not only does such a system refute the existence of objective moral law, but it also has an evolutionary imperative that renders it likely without a creator.

Pro drops most of this, and asserts that a moral law exist, and only defends this using a series of objectively false claims - such as even remote tribes thinking murder is wrong, and Gods law is objective and inviolable.

Pro fails at every stage to offer justification for his claims.

As a result, arguments should clear be given to con.

Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Does the word copy not register?
#22
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
This is like the 4th time you’ve been caught copying and pasting an external book or website, do you not learn?
Contender
#21
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
It is a secret. Not really. Just think about who is able to do it and you would have your answer.
#20
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Sure.
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
You mean like repeatedly plagiarizing content from third parties?
Contender
#18
Added:
--> @PressF4Respect
I would't mind sources if people didn't abuse them.
Instigator
#17
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Cool new username. I didn't know you could change it.
#16
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Why not?
#15
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Why did you write poems in the first place?
#14
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
You win.
#13
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
(Prose - ordinary written language, without rhyme or rhythm.)
Right-wing and left-wing are outdated terms
People just use them for their beliefs to get re-affirmed
If you look at the scales that the right-wingers make,
Obummer is next to Hitler and Trump's really far away!
But if you take a tiny glimpse at the ones from the left
Nazis are right next to those who think taxes are theft!
This is now beggining to sound like a rap battle
So I'm getting into my ass-kicking rap shuttle
And pushing up my rhyme-quality rap throttle
Prepare to hear OP rhymes coming from my supraglottal!
#12
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
Right winger
More like Trump supporter
You like libertarianism
More like anarchism
What do you mean by prose?
#11
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Omar's poems make less and less sense
And the nonsense in them is immense
He should return back to prose
His poems are something I oppose
#10
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
TheAtheist
More like spiritualist
Dances around left and right
Doesn't understand might equals right
#9
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Omar stopped writing in prose.
What happened to him, no one knows .
But we know all his comments rhyme...
Maybe this is some spiritual sign?
#8
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Plagiarism, Failure to meet BOP and forfeit - extreme poor conduct from Pro.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Plagiarism and forfeit. Any form of plagiarism is worthy of an automatic loss because they didn't present any original argument and failed to meet their BOP.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Plagiarism. Very ironic since pro is arguing that if God exists it would have been impossible for that to occur, unless he is somehow greater than God to overcome the will of an all powerful all knowing being...