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.**

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

........................................

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This vote is entirely backed into because throughout the debate, only the Pro offered any argument at all, and since there was no Con argument, I still don't agree this debate is a "win." Maybe the lack of scoring points by a sports team is a loss for that team, but in the absence of a competitive struggle in a debate, is that a "win" when there is no opponent but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed in which the Con determines to offer no argument? That's a cheap win in my book.
Besides, Pro's argument in round 2 that:

P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)

P2: It is likely that god exists.

C1: Morality is likely objective.

Is a logical flaw given the simple acceptance in P1 of the if, then statement because it entirely ignores the possibility that there may be an evil god, or even a god that daily changes as one to the other. See https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/religion/why-must-god-be-good/article3258184.ece

I personally disagree with the reference, but pure logic must consider the possibility; therefore, the if, then does not hold. Therefore, the balance of the argument, depending on a flawed step, cannot merely dismiss the misstep.

I vote holding my nose.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeiture.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full Forfeit.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit.