I have to say, I found your arguments in this debate to be very surprising in that you hardly mentioned God at all. In your previous debate, you argued that "if God does not exist, then morality is speculative at best", yet here, you made an argument for moral realism while scarcely appealing to God at all. I must ask, why is that?
> "I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point."
That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
And yes, you did draw a distinction between viewing the Bible as a religious text and viewing it as a factual, historical account, but there's a difference between doing that and actually arguing that a supernatural event simply can't happen at all. I agree that the medical impossibility of resurrection after brain death means that Pro has a difficult case to prove, but as I said, they just had to show that the given supernatural event was more likely than a completely natural explanation.
> "Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it."
Well, yes, but there's different standards for the burden of proof. Compare civil trials and criminal trials in the US, for instance. In both types of trials, the one bringing the case generally has the burden of proof, but in a criminal trial the burden of proof is much stricter than in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt). Pro only needed to prove that the resurrection was *probable*, not that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. It seemed like you wanted Pro to be able to prove it as an absolute fact, when that was never necessary for them.
I feel I should add on a little bit to my vote -- a lot of the discussion in this debate was around the idea that the fact that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death does not mean that they actually had. Pro did not disagree with this idea, but argues that it's still strong evidence in favor of the resurrection actually happening. Con tries to provide a counterexample with Nazi soldiers dying for the cause of Adolf Hitler. (Why do so many debaters feel the need to invoke Nazi Germany when it's not directly relevant?) However, as Pro points out, most of these soldiers did not directly interact with Hitler himself, but fell for propaganda. I agree with this point, but more broadly, I can't say that I really understand Con's comparison in the first place, as it's not as though Nazi soldiers believed that Hitler had supernatural abilities or anything. No one disputes that Adolf Hitler existed. On the other hand, people do dispute whether the supernatural events talked about in the Bible actually happened and whether Jesus even existed at all. I don't really see the comparison that Con makes, so I don't think the argument really counts for anything.
Sorry to keep you waiting! I did intend to have my arguments up earlier, but to be honest with you, I have a really bad habit of procrastinating until the last minute. Looking forward to your responses!
I saw your post on the vote requests thread. I've been slacking a little bit on this site. I have a round of arguments due in a debate I'm participating in, and there are a couple other debates I've been asked to vote on but haven't done so yet. I'm going to write my arguments, then vote on the other debates I said I'd vote on, but after that, I promise you, I will vote on this one.
Voting conduct only due to forfeiture is allowed, but only if one party misses 40% of the debate or more due to forfeitures. Missing one round in a three round debate doesn't meet this bar, so you do actually have to explain the arguments section of your vote.
It's up to you to decide how to handle an opponent's forfeiture. You can decide to make no arguments if you wish, or you can summarize all the arguments you've made so far and try to present your case that you've made so far.
"moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists."
Sure, I'd like to hear more about it after this debate is over. Ethical theory is very interesting to me, personally, and I like learning more about it.
"Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real."
Yup, he could do that. I was well aware of that when I created this debate. I'm interested to see what arguments he will use.
Sure, technically I don't have to disprove moral realism to win, but if I can successfully do so, then there is no way for my opponent to win. Conversely, my opponent could win by simply proving that morality is objective without bringing God into the equation at all. Given that he believes that objective morality can't exist without God, however, I doubt he'll take that route.
As far as moral theories go, I'll admit I'm not the most well-educated person. I know a bit about philosophy, but I'm no expert. But when it comes to theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc., I find that they all seem to have been formed by starting with the conclusion that moral realism is true and working backwards from there. I don't think that any of them actually manage to prove that morality is objective.
Let me know if there's anything you need me to adjust about the debate setup. Please do not reject the challenge; that will delete the entire debate. Just let me know if you need me to change anything and I can do so.
You know, if you made a new debate and made the resolution something like, "If God exists, then morality is objective," I might just be willing to accept that one.
I'm referring to the kind of debate you've made here, where you simply state that "The transformational power of accepting Christ" is evidence for Christianity. You don't say that it is compelling evidence, or that it is evidence that alone shows that Christianity is *likely* true, you just say that it is evidence in favor of Christianity. Allow me to explain how it is almost impossible for you to lose this debate by using the raven paradox.
Consider the statement "All ravens are black." Every time you see a raven that is black, that is evidence in favor of the statement being true. Are you with me so far? Now consider the statement "Everything that is not black is not a raven." Really, this is actually just saying the same thing as our original statment. So, it follows that every time you see something that is not black and is not a raven, that is evidence for all ravens being black. Thus, seeing a green apple that is not a raven is evidence, however tiny, that all ravens are black.
Moving back to this debate, your resolution does not say that religious rehabilitation is *strong* or *compelling* evidence for Christianity being true; no weight is given to the strength of the evidence. Rather, you merely state that it is evidence at all: "This is the contention of this debate: Whether Christianity is a placebo effect, or this phenomenon is evidence that Christianity is also true." There is no adjective modifying the word 'evidence' in that sentence. Hence, it is basically impossible for you to lose this one. Do you understand what I am saying?
The thing about these "X is evidence for Y" debates is that, in my opinion, they are almost impossible for the Pro side to lose if they even try at all. As shown by the Raven paradox, even a statement like "This apple is green and not a raven" is evidence, however small, for the claim that "All ravens are black." I don't think that religious conversions in prison are particularly *strong* or *compelling* evidence in favor of Christianity, but I cannot deny that they are evidence for Christianity at all.
I don't think it would quite be appropriate for me to give specific advice in the middle of a debate. I've skimmed through the latest few rounds. Both you and Barney seem quite dedicated to the line-by-line rebuttal in this particular debate, which I have to say I'm not really a huge fan of. In the end, I think this one is all going to come down to who wins on the argument about the 13th amendment, at least as far as my vote is concerned. I'll have to wait and see how these last two rounds go.
Appreciated, but if you are going to leave a video vote (I'd much rather read a text-based one), could you at least make it a relatively short one? The vote you left on the Trump vs Biden debate was like an hour long. I was going to watch it, but when I saw the length I noped out.
Damn, I meant to vote on this one. I let time get away from me. Oh, well, it's not like my vote would have changed the outcome anyway. Pro was already winning by a wide margin and I was planning on voting for them anyway.
A fellow procrastinator, I see. I have a bad tendency of doing the exact same thing. Still, I was expecting a full forfeiture, which a lot of new users on this site end up doing. Keep up the good work of not forfeiting and I think you'll do well!
Please, just make some posts on the forum so you can put these 'debates' there instead. Stop cluttering the debates section of this website with these pointless wastes of time.
Really? I guess I can see how arguments could be said to be sufficiently explained, though I feel like even that point is borderline, but I don't feel like conduct was sufficiently explained.
By the way, welcome to DART! I hope you stay. A lot of people who join this website never end up finishing a single debate, so kudos to you for actually completing an entire debate, and doing so reasonably well!
I have to say, I found your arguments in this debate to be very surprising in that you hardly mentioned God at all. In your previous debate, you argued that "if God does not exist, then morality is speculative at best", yet here, you made an argument for moral realism while scarcely appealing to God at all. I must ask, why is that?
This is actually so easy to counter that I'm not even going to bother. It would be too easy.
> "I will say that I find it a little confusing that you both say that I did not give you a reason to doubt the possibility of Jesus resurrection when you also point out that I proved such an event is medically impossible and that Pro conceded that point."
That's not really what I said. I said that "Con doesn't seem to dispute that a supernatural event could at least theoretically happen, so Pro really just has to show evidence that a fully natural explanation for the events around Jesus's death is less likely than the given supernatural one."
And yes, you did draw a distinction between viewing the Bible as a religious text and viewing it as a factual, historical account, but there's a difference between doing that and actually arguing that a supernatural event simply can't happen at all. I agree that the medical impossibility of resurrection after brain death means that Pro has a difficult case to prove, but as I said, they just had to show that the given supernatural event was more likely than a completely natural explanation.
> "Lastly, I disagree with you saying that I put undue burden of proof is on Pro because ultimately the burden of proof is on pro. He is the one who must prove that it is possibility of Jesus coming back to life. My job as Con was to show reasons for why we should doubt it."
Well, yes, but there's different standards for the burden of proof. Compare civil trials and criminal trials in the US, for instance. In both types of trials, the one bringing the case generally has the burden of proof, but in a criminal trial the burden of proof is much stricter than in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt). Pro only needed to prove that the resurrection was *probable*, not that there is no reasonable doubt that it happened. It seemed like you wanted Pro to be able to prove it as an absolute fact, when that was never necessary for them.
I feel I should add on a little bit to my vote -- a lot of the discussion in this debate was around the idea that the fact that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death does not mean that they actually had. Pro did not disagree with this idea, but argues that it's still strong evidence in favor of the resurrection actually happening. Con tries to provide a counterexample with Nazi soldiers dying for the cause of Adolf Hitler. (Why do so many debaters feel the need to invoke Nazi Germany when it's not directly relevant?) However, as Pro points out, most of these soldiers did not directly interact with Hitler himself, but fell for propaganda. I agree with this point, but more broadly, I can't say that I really understand Con's comparison in the first place, as it's not as though Nazi soldiers believed that Hitler had supernatural abilities or anything. No one disputes that Adolf Hitler existed. On the other hand, people do dispute whether the supernatural events talked about in the Bible actually happened and whether Jesus even existed at all. I don't really see the comparison that Con makes, so I don't think the argument really counts for anything.
Thank you for your well wishes! I am already on the mend, thankfully. Getting my vote in on time shouldn't be an issue.
I'm a bit sick right now, but I still plan on voting on this one.
I understand. I've let things slip away from me before as well.
Ah, I let this get away from me. I'll have my vote up by the end of Friday.
Truly one of the debates of all time
Seems like an interesting debate. I'll try to have my vote up by the end of this weekend
This debate is interesting so far. Tag me when all the rounds have been completed. I will vote on this one.
You voted for the wrong person.
I'm going to try and see if I can get my RfD completed in time, but I might not be able to. These past few days have just been crazy busy for me.
Sorry to keep you waiting! I did intend to have my arguments up earlier, but to be honest with you, I have a really bad habit of procrastinating until the last minute. Looking forward to your responses!
I saw your post on the vote requests thread. I've been slacking a little bit on this site. I have a round of arguments due in a debate I'm participating in, and there are a couple other debates I've been asked to vote on but haven't done so yet. I'm going to write my arguments, then vote on the other debates I said I'd vote on, but after that, I promise you, I will vote on this one.
I've read your opening arguments and it looks like this is going to be a good debate! I'll try to have my arguments up by the end of the week.
Voting conduct only due to forfeiture is allowed, but only if one party misses 40% of the debate or more due to forfeitures. Missing one round in a three round debate doesn't meet this bar, so you do actually have to explain the arguments section of your vote.
It's up to you to decide how to handle an opponent's forfeiture. You can decide to make no arguments if you wish, or you can summarize all the arguments you've made so far and try to present your case that you've made so far.
I genuinely do not know how even the most pro-gun person could genuinely believe this.
"moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists."
Sure, I'd like to hear more about it after this debate is over. Ethical theory is very interesting to me, personally, and I like learning more about it.
"Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real."
Yup, he could do that. I was well aware of that when I created this debate. I'm interested to see what arguments he will use.
Sure, technically I don't have to disprove moral realism to win, but if I can successfully do so, then there is no way for my opponent to win. Conversely, my opponent could win by simply proving that morality is objective without bringing God into the equation at all. Given that he believes that objective morality can't exist without God, however, I doubt he'll take that route.
As far as moral theories go, I'll admit I'm not the most well-educated person. I know a bit about philosophy, but I'm no expert. But when it comes to theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc., I find that they all seem to have been formed by starting with the conclusion that moral realism is true and working backwards from there. I don't think that any of them actually manage to prove that morality is objective.
It isn't tho, and I intend to prove it in this debate.
Let me know if there's anything you need me to adjust about the debate setup. Please do not reject the challenge; that will delete the entire debate. Just let me know if you need me to change anything and I can do so.
...Yeah, I'm not going to be able to get my vote up in time, sorry. I might still post my thoughts on who won on the forum.
You know, if you made a new debate and made the resolution something like, "If God exists, then morality is objective," I might just be willing to accept that one.
Thank you for voting, but you didn't actually vote on the debate, you just voted on the topic.
Thank you for voting!
Tempted to Kritik this one from the standpoint of moral anti-realism...
I'm referring to the kind of debate you've made here, where you simply state that "The transformational power of accepting Christ" is evidence for Christianity. You don't say that it is compelling evidence, or that it is evidence that alone shows that Christianity is *likely* true, you just say that it is evidence in favor of Christianity. Allow me to explain how it is almost impossible for you to lose this debate by using the raven paradox.
Consider the statement "All ravens are black." Every time you see a raven that is black, that is evidence in favor of the statement being true. Are you with me so far? Now consider the statement "Everything that is not black is not a raven." Really, this is actually just saying the same thing as our original statment. So, it follows that every time you see something that is not black and is not a raven, that is evidence for all ravens being black. Thus, seeing a green apple that is not a raven is evidence, however tiny, that all ravens are black.
Moving back to this debate, your resolution does not say that religious rehabilitation is *strong* or *compelling* evidence for Christianity being true; no weight is given to the strength of the evidence. Rather, you merely state that it is evidence at all: "This is the contention of this debate: Whether Christianity is a placebo effect, or this phenomenon is evidence that Christianity is also true." There is no adjective modifying the word 'evidence' in that sentence. Hence, it is basically impossible for you to lose this one. Do you understand what I am saying?
I've been meaning to vote on this one. I'll try to have my vote up by the end of the voting period.
The thing about these "X is evidence for Y" debates is that, in my opinion, they are almost impossible for the Pro side to lose if they even try at all. As shown by the Raven paradox, even a statement like "This apple is green and not a raven" is evidence, however small, for the claim that "All ravens are black." I don't think that religious conversions in prison are particularly *strong* or *compelling* evidence in favor of Christianity, but I cannot deny that they are evidence for Christianity at all.
Dude, you JUST created this debate. Chill out
This system would work if Earth had unlimited arable land and everybody agreed to continue the system in perpetuity.
I'll have my vote up by the end of this weekend, promise.
Welcome to DART!
I don't think it would quite be appropriate for me to give specific advice in the middle of a debate. I've skimmed through the latest few rounds. Both you and Barney seem quite dedicated to the line-by-line rebuttal in this particular debate, which I have to say I'm not really a huge fan of. In the end, I think this one is all going to come down to who wins on the argument about the 13th amendment, at least as far as my vote is concerned. I'll have to wait and see how these last two rounds go.
Morality is subjective regardless of whether or not God exists.
Appreciated, but if you are going to leave a video vote (I'd much rather read a text-based one), could you at least make it a relatively short one? The vote you left on the Trump vs Biden debate was like an hour long. I was going to watch it, but when I saw the length I noped out.
I'm a little bit busy with a game of mafia right now, but I'll read through them tonight.
"The debate has a topic to follow"
It literally doesn't though.
Damn, I meant to vote on this one. I let time get away from me. Oh, well, it's not like my vote would have changed the outcome anyway. Pro was already winning by a wide margin and I was planning on voting for them anyway.
I will, indeed, consider debating you on this.
"Afterlife"
Oh my god, what an awful word
The 9 to 5 isn't modern day slavery; slavery is modern day slavery.
A fellow procrastinator, I see. I have a bad tendency of doing the exact same thing. Still, I was expecting a full forfeiture, which a lot of new users on this site end up doing. Keep up the good work of not forfeiting and I think you'll do well!
Remind me to vote on this one if I haven't done so by next week.
Please, just make some posts on the forum so you can put these 'debates' there instead. Stop cluttering the debates section of this website with these pointless wastes of time.
Really? I guess I can see how arguments could be said to be sufficiently explained, though I feel like even that point is borderline, but I don't feel like conduct was sufficiently explained.
I might take this one. Consider me interested.
By the way, welcome to DART! I hope you stay. A lot of people who join this website never end up finishing a single debate, so kudos to you for actually completing an entire debate, and doing so reasonably well!