If everyone else in a village drinks magical water that makes you confused, it would be fine for you to drink it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
how confused? It makes you unable to differentiate truth and false, and confuse black with white.
Is this permanent? We don't know. Everyone else in the village is confused thus far.
I am arguing that drinking the water and following custom is okay.
Unrated because I feel like pro side is really hard to argue.
It makes you unable to differentiate truth and false, and confuse black with white.
- If everyone else in a village drinks magical water that creates a reality in which murder is morally good, it would be fine for you to drink it.
“If the village was truly immoral, surely some minority would have disputed, rioted, spoken up. This has happened in every course of unreasonable dictator of history.”
- Do you deny objective morality in order to maintain your
position in this debate? If not, why?
- If you deny objective morality, by what standard do you deem
the decision to enter a state of confusion to be “okay” or good? Put another
way, what makes the decision to drink the water morally acceptable besides your
personal preference?
- Actions are determined by perceived results, not beliefs
- Morality is subjective, more specifically pragmatic, as opposed to being objective
"Remember that con has not yet defeated the idea of the peer pressure and the potential punishments or being ill received for being in the minority."
The entire debate came down to the ethical question of objective morality. Con does a great job at proving there is no objective way measure good and evil in this village, and Pro's response is "it hasn't burned down". Con does a great job at pointing out why this doesn't mean there isn't rape and murder still, especially since the protest against evil like this is hinged on the ability to identify it as evil. Since Pro never justifies them as not evil, Con wins.
Pro: Tips to get better, challenge the ethical framework set up by Con. Say ethics is defined by liberty or something, so the ability to drink is key to ethics. By letting his definition be the only one that stands, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Con: Tips to get better, I think you did fine. The only thing I might say is frame the argument about evil as, even if it isn't guaranteed that evil will happen, the chance that it could is reason to vote Con. That makes it a lot easier to vote if neg tries to challenge if it would happen.
can i get a glass of water.I want to forget
actually, I guess equal means most people might do nothing as they are lazy. It's up to debate
the benefits either outweigh the negatives, or are equal.
What's the definition of fine?
Con arg is basically staying true to yourself
I think that Pro is 10x easier than con. I don't see the justification for Con.
Democrats too. Only the republicans' water contains 10x more drugs than the democrat one.
Isn't that the Republican Party's campaign slogan?
do you think pro side is winnable? It seems pretty hard, merely due to peer pressure to take this strange mental-altering "drug"