Instigator
Points: 11

Universal Morals exist within society

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 42
Description
Universal Morals are a philosophical debate dating around as old as True Altruism. So, today's debate follows whether or not there exists a Universal Moral. If so, the Affirmative must provide this evidence and moral, while the Negation (Me), will debate otherwise.
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
Due to my opponent forfeiting, I am going to keep this brief...

 
Human Society:
Society is the voluntary groupings of people with a shared goal. In the USA we often boil it down to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Every member of society seeks to maximize the value derived from those three things. The form varies, and the level of important to each varies, but the morals at the heart do not.
 

Evil:
Those who oppose societal universal morals (rapists, terrorists, people of whichever political party you are opposed, etc.), are not true members of society, thus do not invalidate anything.
Round 2
Published:
There is no such thing as  A Universal Moral, that exists in Society. No matter what, there is always something to an acceptable reason behind what would normally be against morals, such as murder, that would be accepted in other society's. Whether that be Religion, Utilitarianism, or law, there is always something keeping Universal Morals from being truly Universal. As stated in the Description, I would like to see my opponent start with a Universal Moral and debate from there.

One thing, Keep in mind that Universal means within all Societies. Not just within American, but also all of Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, And all countries within. The Affirmative must prove that there is a Universal Moral within all these Societies to win.
Published:
Note: My opening case has been entirely dropped. So extend points.

 
Definitions:
These are taken from the short description written by my opponent, and visible on the debate listings page.
Universal Morals: Morals that are generally accepted within all society's.
Morals: A decision to tell between right from wrong.
 
Further, morals stem from values, and the terms are often used interchangeably. By the agreed definitions above, if people would consider violation of a value to be wrong, they have violated a moral; and if that being wrong is generally accepted by all societies, it is a universal moral.
 
 
Non-Extinction (nukes):
Yeah, I’m pulling the nuclear option (pun intended).
 
Stemming from the value of collectivism, we have the clear moral that seeking the extinction of our species would be wrong. Further, we have given men countless opportunities via nuclear weapons, no one has used the easy tool to make threat against this moral.
 
With thousands of nuclear detonations, there have been only two atomic bombs used against human targets, and both were strategically to save lives. Right now 40 countries are known to have access to a total of nearly 14,000 of the weapons, but the societies in each impose ethical restrictions which has successfully prevented them from being used to cause death.
 
Any countries that can be named without access, have specifically chosen not to successfully develop the technology. Bear in mind, they’ve had almost a century to do so, and pocket watches now possess more computing power than was needed for the original weapons development.

Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Unchallenged Universal Morals:
  1. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (yes, that's just one)
  2. Non-Extinction

Round 4
Published:
Due to recent, uncalled events in my life, I'm sorry to say I can not continue the debate. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and wish to you that we can do this debate again soon.


Also, because I have a character limit:

asasdfasdfasdasdgasdgadfsgas;dfkjasfdgkja;sdfgkljas;dlkfja;sdlkfjasld;kfja;sdkljfpqwoeirjtpaoskdjfapsdkjgapoiejgpqasdoifvjagperogjapsodijfagpodfibjpajdofbmaposidkijfasdfpiojasdfiojaspdifjapsdoifj

Published:
No worries, I hope everything is either is okay or becomes so again soon.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
My opponent conceded, so you all know how to vote.
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Not looking too good so far.
#2
Added:
Hope this debate goes somewhere
#1
#6
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
concession
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I would like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Con has ff the majority of the rounds of the debate which is poor conduct
I ask the other voters to consider this when voting on conduct as well.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
C/FF
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con conceded.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Concession