Instigator / Con
18
1511
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#984

Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Ad_Infinitum
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
12
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

My position is that an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective standard, rather than a utilitarian standard or Kantian Maxim, cannot exist without a supreme and objective outside source defining an action or mode of action as good. Your position (pro) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system. Additionally, the discussion of whether or not the adoption of a subjective system of ethical values, to serve a utilitarian or other function, would be interesting to make reference to, and I am completely open to switching my position if I am convinced by the argument. Additionally, this is not a religious argument, but a purely philosophical one, and should not include the invocation of, say, Biblical passages for the purpose of proving the "brutality" of the Judeo-Christian moral code.

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

RationalMadman by default wins this argument given the contender's description. The proposition over which they argue is "Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God." So Con's responsibility is to argue its negation, which would be "Moral Codes Can Exist in and of Themselves Without God." While Con did acknowledge his folly, his arguments nonetheless informed Pro's position. And Pro wasn't shy to agree with Con's arguments immediately. I will award however conduct to Con because despite his mistake he remained calm and polite. Pro, while maintaining some decorum, took a few jabs (i.e. "Blind User") and admitted to the possibility of his trolling the subject. Spelling and Grammar was virtually the same for the both of them, as well as references to sources.

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

In brief: Looks like an attempted noob snipe, but it missed by a mile.

Arguments (AI):
Given that RM agreed to the terms of the debate outlined in the description (including a clarification on who was who), and proceeded to immediately concede the debate in R1, this goes to AI. The debate never goes back on topic after that, so RM has no points made for his side of the resolution; whereas AI’s points were left utterly uncontested.

The single argument is straight forward, morals are not infallible unless you exclusively obey divine command theory, which kind of says we should not try to understand morals… But again, uncontested, and at least on topic.

As for mechanical aspects of this site: It was off topic within this debate. Start a debate on it with a moderator if it’s such a problem.

Note on debate descriptions: Troll debates are not moderated, so it makes intuitive sense that votes ignoring a troll-strain in a description would not be punished. I as a voter do enforce descriptions, as it says when creating a debate “Detailed description which may contain any important information about the format, the rules and etc.” Granted I generally view violating rules there as a conduct only issue.

Conduct (AI):
R2, RM choose to repeatedly insinuate that AI blind, and further that it would be a bad thing about him or her were that the case. This was done as a tactic to not engage with the debate subject.
Comparatively, AI accused RM of not reading before accepting, which I doubt is true, but RM choose to present himself in a manner to imply the truth to that statement. This was done to try to get the debate back on topic.
AI did briefly fall to RMs level (a reverse paraphrase of RMs statements against the blind, in this case because RM said he needs an aid to read for him, he said the same about RM), but it does not hurt as bad because it was with the clear intent of getting the topic both of them agreed to debate to actually happen.

S&G (tied):
This leans slightly in favor of RM for catching the mistake, and for awkward formatting, but nothing was bad enough to interfere in understanding the debate.

For formatting I suggest only using the indent for larger chunks of text; such as quotations which go across multiple lines. And yes, of course be careful in regards to selecting pro and con before instigating a debate, and if accepting one make sure it's one you are actually interested in debating.

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

The description was, in my view, completely transparent and clear. While the debate title is sometimes used as the resolution: in this case not only did con clearly and specifically outline what his position was, and what pros position would be, he clearly framed the definitions and positions without ambiguity as to who is who.

Instead of arguing in good faith; pro instead attempts a semantic and nonsensical attack implying that the resolution “wasn’t clear”. While pro goes to great length to explain that debate rules and definitions added in the debate description are not enforced by moderation - pro offers no meaningful argument I can see about what aspect of these rules in this debate should be rejected as unfair or unreasonable, or why I as a voter should over turn the description in his favour.

Indeed pros entire position appears to be “despite the description being clear and fully transparent: I disagree with the allotment of pro and con”. Pro offers me no good reason for why I should reject the clear and concise description and as such pros engire argument is irrelevant.

As pro inherently appears to have the burden of proof, as outlined by the description, and implied in cons opening round - pros failure to engage in any debate on the topic means he offers no actual argument and thus I am forced to award arguments to con.

Conduct:

Pros strategy appears not to be to engage in an actual debate, but to launch a ridiculous semantic argument and frustrate his opponent into forfeiting the debate as a whole. Not only is this arguing in bad faith, it is a shity and antisocial tactic that is likely to drive users from the site. Why would anyone want to use this site, when they create a debate with the intention of debating a topic, only to have a user launch into a left field semantic attack? Con does well to politely sit back and let pro continue his tactic - without forfeiting, or being rude - and for that, I commend him.

Given that pro clearly argues in bad faith, that matching what appears to be a genuine attempt at an intellectual discussion with ridiculous semantics is massively disrespectful to his opponent, and given that such behaviour is clearly detrimental and antithetical to debate in general and the long term health of this site in particular, this constitutes extremely toxic behaviour from pro both within and without the debate : as a result I am awarding con the conduct point too.