Total votes: 3
Description says "Vote PRO if you think that Best.Korea should leave DebateArt.com."
I think that Best.Korea can stay on this website for as long as Best.Korea wants. My thought, I claim, should be against the description thereby I state that my thought is against the description.
He's just fun to have around and can be very reasonable at times.
Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
Pro didn't seem have to have cited anything to back up his claims, Pro also didn't clarify his points reasonably by backing up his claims with logical proof, Pro didn't use anything except semantics and the usage of his own reasoning aided by semantics that also does not sound reasonable enough to be considered effective in supporting his own standpoint and framework.
Pro's argument doesn't seem to be showing most of what is relevant to whatever words he had used in definition.