Instigator / Pro
23
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#338

Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Description

I want to begin by thanking MagicAintReal for agreeing to debate this topic with me. In this debate I will be defending the following proposition:

1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists
2. Objective moral facts exist [not in dispute]
3. Therefore God exists

Definitions
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion, evolution, religious tradition, or culture.
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, this debate is not about a specific religious tradition. I am not defending the Bible or the Qur'an.

Structure
1 - Opening arguments
2-3 Rebuttals
4. Conclusion

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss

As per my opponent's request Ethang5, Raltar, and Death23 cannot vote on the debate

Hahaha consequentialists.

Actually the victor is always on the right side of history.

This is basic stuff that any voter should know...my suspicion is that you know this, but voted fraudulently knowing bsh1 would love to stick it to me and not remove your vote...whatever, I'm on the right side of history and when all the shit hits the fan from the voting coercion that I've observed going on, I'll know that I tried to do the right thing to stop such idiocy in votes.

Did Pro make that point?
No.
Then a good voter would accept that considering the conscious creatures that enhance our homeostasis is perfectly reasonable in the homeostatic principle.

I am confused how you think that plays into homeostasis. Agony is irrelevant to physical decay.

Consciousness of animals that experience the heights of human experience. It was untouched by Pro as well...

The vegetable point was extremely significant. Do we value your homeostasis or thr vegetable's... Why is homeostasis objectively right?

-->
@Ramshutu

Yeah whatever that meant...

-->
@MagicAintReal

You forgot to throw in a couple of words in all-caps there. How else are people to understand you really mean what you’re saying?

-->
@bsh1

One day the moderators will use their removal power to remove dishonesty from votes...one day.
Or is that like expecting punishment for violating an RO twice...not meritorious?

Unfair for all to see.

-->
@bsh1

Votes will be removed for their monolithic focus...unless it's this one...perfect logic.

-->
@bsh1

Wack

-->
@MagicAintReal

The rationale for the decisions was explained. The decisions stand as previously indicated.

-->
@bsh1

How does "Con could not ever meet his BoP. Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place" fit in with ignoring arguments?

-->
@MagicAintReal

The issue with Outplayz vote was that it never explained why winning the homeostasis argument was sufficient to win the debate. Sure, he said that it "was sufficient" but that doesn't tell me "why" it was sufficient. Outplayz goes on to explain why Con wins the homeostasis argument, but not why Con's winning that argument overrode all the other arguments in the debate.

-->
@bsh1

By the voter constantly mentioning "Con covered himself" and "Con proved that homeostasis is sufficient enough to explain why there are objective moral facts" the arguments examined by the voter were shown to be main arguments by them making Con's argument able to "cover himself" and "sufficiently prove" his case.

-->
@MagicAintReal

I don't think you read my reply to your comment, which was: "RM explains why only that argument mattered, whereas I am not seeing that kind of analysis from Outplayz." If a voter indicates why it is not important to survey all the main arguments, then they are not required to do so.

-->
@bsh1

RM makes no mention of any of Pro's arguments and again, as you pointed out in the removal of Outplayz's vote, RM had not "surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument" this could be written about RM's RFD, just look at it.

-->
@MagicAintReal

RM explains why only that argument mattered, whereas I am not seeing that kind of analysis from Outplayz.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yeah, but bifolkal's vote realized that there was only one moral action throughout the debate and of course we think of the child's homeostasis not some command never mentioned in the debate by a god that was never proven to exist...the moral commands were refuted and the refutation was dropped by Pro so that's probably why the most competent voter only glazed over it.

-->
@Logical-Master

Ramshutu doesn't vote me down vindictively, just erroneously, but RM and his crew of circle-jerkers are definitively out to get me, it's been discussed thoroughly with moderation in private...it's not up for dispute.

-->
@MagicAintReal

And Bilfokals too, I mean no one so far seems to have even referenced moral commands

-->
@bsh1

">Reason for Mod Action: While the voter does an acceptable job of weighing arguments, it is not clear that the voter surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument (Con's case) while failing to address Pro's case. Since a comprehensive survey of the arguments is required to award argument points, the vote is insufficient."

This can be said of RM's vote as well.

-->
@Logical-Master

Well, I seem to get either “excellent, well balanced RFD”, or hundreds of PMs about how unfair my vote was.

Guess what each of those two categories have in common!

-->
@MagicAintReal
@bsh1

That was the only argument i felt relevant to decide who won and the other arguments were a tie. That's why i only voted on the significance of that one argument. But, whatever... Sorry magic.

-->
@MagicAintReal

"come on voters who have blocked me and I've blocked them and are vindictively trying to vote me down!"

Wow. Do you seriously think that?

Well, somehow I feel offended and left out :(

-->
@bsh1

Thank you!!

-->
@RationalMadman

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@jamesgilbert

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jamesgilbert // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for articles

>Reason for Decision: Con's main argument against pro was homeostasis. However, he never sufficiently proved why that determines right and wrong.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things.
************************************************************************

-->
@Bifolkal

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bifolkal // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@Logical-Master

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Logical-Master // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

Outplayz RFD, Part 2:

Furthermore:
"I had said that actions that lead toward the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting are considered more moral than those actions that don't."
With those he covered himself on perceived or immoral acts that don't directly harm someone. Which i was having a problem with too and agreeing with pro. Bc how is it homeostasis if i have sex with a dead body? What makes that wrong since there is no harm to the one that's dead. Surprised pro didn't use that example btw since it's a little stronger than the comatose person one. But still, con covered himself by saying homeostasis can also be perceived. That it doesn't have to be literal. One knows having sex with a dead body is a detriment to them due to all types of health issues. But not even that, since a dead body can't consent... you would know if the person was alive and didn't consent you would be going against that person's homeostasis. Since he defined homeostasis as being able to be defined as such... i feel he did his job in refuting that something else other than god can account for our morality. Very good debate. I don't have much time to go on so i hope this is sufficient. Good job in any case to both.

Outplayz' RFD, Part 1:

Very interesting debate. One of few i've actually read the whole thing and can now vote on. Con proved that homeostasis is sufficient enough to explain why there are objective moral facts. It seems to me pro was trying to trap him in paradoxes and/or fallacies by changing what con meant by homeostasis. Pro claimed it's like the harm principle and gave paradoxes that on hearing them i agreed until con cleared up what he meant by homeostasis. When con replied
"The homeostatic principle allows for aggression when the net homeostasis of those attempting to maintain everyone's homeostasis is preserved by the aggression.
Also if aggression were to eliminate a potential detriment to the homeostasis of those attempting to maintain everyone's homeostasis, i.e. self defense, then aggression is fine."

-->
@Outplayz

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Outplayz // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: See above.

>Reason for Mod Action: While the voter does an acceptable job of weighing arguments, it is not clear that the voter surveyed all or almost all of the main arguments of the debate--the voter talks with singular focus about the homeostasis argument (Con's case) while failing to address Pro's case. Since a comprehensive survey of the arguments is required to award argument points, the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************

-->
@bsh1

I hope bsh1 can get to the reported votes before the voting period ends.

-->
@David

I kind of agree with that on the front of the K, I think the only way to argue against position (if pro makes a perfect pitch) is to argue against moral absolutes, or at least partial objectivity (applies to humans - but not to animals outside).

One thing I will point out, for your own future growth, is that con effectively conceded the whole debate twice: When he argued an additional mechanism of judging moral decisions in addition to homeostasis: he’s effectively conceding homeostasis can’t explain morality, and as what he raises is fairly arbitrary and subjective ad-hoc rationalization - he concedes the objective point too. In addition, he argued that the teeniest, tiniest harm allows morality to be judged, you mostly pointed this out: but he basically conceded that homeostasis can’t renser moral decisions because you cannot use them to weight harms.

If you had pointed these two out in more detail: the latter simply by saying that the homeostatis of slapping someone is more aggregious than the least harmful form of rape: it would have been easier to award you the debate on the spot. It’s always harder to spot in the debate than out of it.

Conversely: the big wedge for me that I was hoping you would exploit more, was moral compulsion. We feel compelled to follow morality, con offered no explanation for why we feel that, and it was mostly implied by most of your argument on commands - but it wasn’t explicit enough: that compulsion on its own is neatly unanswerable by homeostasis could have made the debate far more one sided. Instead you were mostly lucky that con hinges the debate on homeostasis, and you argued it slightly better.

You won on penalties after missing 3 open goals!

If Pro didn't bring up that point, in fact, if Pro never responded to how suffering exists in opposition to homeostasis, you've no reason as the voter to think it doesn't, you treat it as a dropped point and you also treat Pro never responding to the claim that all MORAL actions can be reduced to homeostasis. Pro was asked every round and never responded.

Suffering isn't even homeostasis related.

suffering and maltreatment are in no way at all objectively evil in and of itself. to a hedonistic capitalist, it's morally right to make others suffer at your pleasure and for the hardworking Christian, suffering and undergoing maltreatment without getting revenge for it is going to be highly moral to do.

Aside from that, you need to prove that any axiom, even that suffering is evil, is objective and not subjective.

From voter:
"Pro wins the debate because Con never ever, not even hinting at it, explains what is the reason for which we should have homeostasis as the basis of morality."

From Con in the debate:
"Homeostasis exists in opposition to suffering and maltreatment, things associated with actions of immorality, and is an objective way to measure whether or not an action is moral i.e. does it lead to homeostasis?...For example, if your child had been running around for hours, and, as a result, had become dehydrated, it would be a perfectly healthy behavior to administer water (H2O) to them, because this action would lead to their homeostasis."

There are examples, explanations, and a claim, dropped by Pro, that ALL moral actions can be reduced to the homeostatic principle, and if the voter were the least bit honest, he would have mentioned that too...this fucking site.

You know what really says "Yeah I assessed debater performance?"

"Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place."

You can't win, so I vote Pro...come on voters who have blocked me and I've blocked them and are vindictively trying to vote me down!
Come on!

-->
@RationalMadman

Thanks for the vote!
The problem with any K is that Con already accepted P2. If he didn’t accept P2 he could easily argue against moral absolutes. Once you accept P2 then you have to explain an objective framework

-->
@Ramshutu

Actually fair point.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Yeah, it’s more the case you can’t handle people voting against you and feel more inclined to harass and harangue them repeatedly in private. I vote for you when you win, and against you when you don’t.

I do find it hilarious when you take it so personally.

-->
@Ramshutu
@Bifolkal

Yeah, fraudulent votes don't get removed for voting on sources that weren't there...
No wait, yeah they do.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/386/comment_links/3561

Bifolkal, take it from a guy who doesn't have votes removed, you're correct, there is a small syndicate after me...I don't mind, it's flattering.

-->
@Bifolkal

Nah, I don’t see many fraudulent votes at all, there’s a couple of individuals that are generally rather mad at him: but they don’t actually seem to vote on anything he puts up. In my view he has good days and bad days.

-->
@Ramshutu

Tbh i cant really blame him, it seems like there's a few debaters out there trying to knock him down b/c he's one of the top debaters, bt they use such fraudulent votes...it's really weird actually.

-->
@Ramshutu

Oh is that why the voters don't like him?