Instigator / Con
14
1615
rating
16
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#2266

RESOLVED: Objective Morality Exists.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

BearMan
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
7
1512
rating
12
debates
54.17%
won
Description

No information

-->
@seldiora

much better

-->
@BearMan

Np. Actually, I was working on the vote before you asked me to vote LOL

-->
@MisterChris

Thanks for the good advice, I'll try to improve my case later.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06

Can someone please vote? (Never mind MisterChris, you can vote.)

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points to standard.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.

The voter's only argument justification was "pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral." This justification misses the mark of all 3 standards.

Furthermore, the voter has injected their own argumentation into their vote. This is bad voter conduct for obvious reasons.

pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral. He could've tried being even more resolute that each time has different objective morals (similar to how rock wear and tear can change over time, yet still be objective) and how because morality involved human actions, human should decide what to do in the end.

-->
@Barney
@Intelligence_06

Vote

Humans are not the only sentient beings in the universe, I have a source saying this. The thing about this debate is that Water can't accept what objective morality is and it is impossible to prove. Objective morality is not only directed to humans, Water can't decide this based on what animals can't interpret morals. The only thing that we were debating about was the definition, and multiple sources prove Water wrong about what he thinks is objective morality, even my source says:

"In the end, humans are one species. While many religions believe that we are the only intelligent species, and that our creator was focused on us and our actions, someone who is more secular may point to the fact that there may be other intelligent life out there. What we believe to be objectively true may not be in some other galaxy, if you believe there is intelligent life out there.

Even without the aliens, animals have different morals as well. Some animals eat their own as a part of their life cycle. Almost all of us are disgusted over the idea of cannibalism. This is a moral inconsistency found on this earth."

-->
@WaterPhoenix

You'll have to swing hard if you want to make up the ground final round.

bump

-->
@BearMan

Wasn't planning to. BTW,I know how to be objective when it becomes time to vote thanks to my PFD experience, so don't worry about that.

-->
@MisterChris
@seldiora

If you guys feel so strongly about this topic, I plead you not to vote on this debate.

OH SHIT

i was doing a lotta stuff for school, completely forgot this debate existed...

-->
@WaterPhoenix

Nooooooo

-->
@seldiora

CS Lewis has defended against most refutations of P2 persuasively. Anyway, the point I am making is that arguments abound for both PRO and CON.

-->
@MisterChris

I've seen the game Socrates Jones: Pro philosopher easily dispel this idea. P2 has serious problems, "ask for back up" would completely destroy it.

-->
@seldiora

Intuition.

P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
C1: Morality is objective.

how the hell can pro win this?

-->
@Intelligence_06

Don't get your comment. The update is relatively new.

-->
@Intelligence_06

you'd be surprised how little i actually debate on debateart. the fact that it shows my 65% winrate is depressing too...

Oh wait I messed up

-->
@WaterPhoenix

As if you visited only the forums for the past month -_-

woah, the new debate thing is so slick