Instigator / Pro
35
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#1782

QUICK DEBATE: Objective morality, does it exist?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
0
Better legibility
5
0
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
3,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

This is meant to serve as a short demo debate so I can assess the potential of a full debate later on.

I will be PRO, which means I am arguing objective morality exists.

DEFINITIONS:

Objective morality: objective morality is defined by philosopher and professor Justin McBryer as a fundamentally universal and true ethical good that transcends all people.

Exists: To exist is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood." This means that even if we humans cannot recognize it, objective morality is still capable of existing.

ROUND STRUCTURE:
Round 1: Constructive
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Defense

**RULES**
1. No Kritiks
2. No New arguments made in final round
3. No trolling
4. You must follow the Debate Structure
5. No Plagiarism
6. Must follow debate definitions.
**ANY violation of these warrants loss of debate.**

-->
@seldiora

I suppose you could argue such a thing, but it would falter ultimately.

Morality can be objective because every person appeals to the same set of principles.

While a lot of people evaluate music as good if it has a certain melody, rhythm, or lyrics... those principles have way too much variation within themselves to be any consistent measure of objective standards. And enough people denounce those standards entirely, such as people who prefer instrumental music, or those who would rather listen to a tribal drumline than Katy Perry, that they can't be chalked up to be flukes of nature.

-->
@MisterChris

you know, argument A sounds a lot like trying to argue music is objective. People argue what elements of the song appeal to them (melody, rhythm, lyrics), "therefore there must be an objective standard"

-->
@MisterChris

Thank you. Glad to be of service. However, I must advise, and should have in my previous commentary, that I do not believe a God can be evil. I respect God as a title, and not as a name of an omnipotent being, and, as a title, refers to a person who has achieved perfection in every respect, whereas evil is a complete lack of perfection. It is chaos. However, from a strictly logical argument, which may entertain concepts that are not true, the possibility of an evil god must be considered.

-->
@fauxlaw

All good! I also appreciate your little commentary on my point, that gives me a few ideas to make my arguments stronger.

Good grief! Did I write that first paragraph in my vote reasoning without editing it, or what? "...but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed..." ?! What a mash! I apologize

-->
@Death23

So be it, I will try to not forfeit.

-->
@MisterChris

Re: A more full debate at a later time - No objection. Re: Terminating this debate - I do not consent to that at this time.

-->
@Death23

Actually, if I'm honest, I have struggled to find time this week. I will likely struggle to have it the next time around too. For the sake of my sanity, would you be alright with canning this one right now? I think we should commit to a more full debate on it between us, maybe during my spring break.

-->
@MisterChris

Is it gonna happen?

-->
@Death23

Thanks for accepting!

-->
@Zaradi

I'm not a fan of kritiks... maybe I am a bore.

"1. No kritiks."

You're no fun...