CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.

OK, so the idea here is that if we have more smart, black, scientists on TV, then racist people will not be able to say that black people are dumb.

Now, in light of women's lib, what do the large number of images, on the internet, of white, half-naked, women, tell us? ;)

You have to stop them at the source ;)

That is irrelevant as America is a democracy so my point still stands that Athens' government was much more akin to America's than Rome's was.

1 point

A Tecnologia é um verdadeiro benefício quando está ao serviço dos bons e cientificamente fundados princípios e práticas educacionais!

1 point

Well, was the particular baby gay?

Akulakhan(2761) Clarified
1 point

As you may have seen from my argument for the affirmative side of the debate, I'm currently in favor.

daver(55) Clarified
1 point

The positive side which says that if your wealthy your punishment should cost you more in literal dollars? Is as obvious as it is invalid.

Unequal income loss has nothing to due with law and punishment.

Amarel(99) Clarified
1 point

My definition of values doesn't seem like a moral definition because I am using it to premise moral definitions. Except for your view on values, all of your statements about things that are simply an empirical reality are true, which is why I am arguing for an objective morality. (What I refer to as the fundamental value of life requires more than just pain avoidance, that was just an example). My position is that if the "is" is true for living things, then certain "oughts" must follow. Not because I feel that way, but because it's a property of life.

To illustrate from a different debate where you argued against the necessity of life; I would say that Life is the source of necessities. Life is not itself necessary to the universe, it is part of it, and it has necessities.

Somewhat of a Side Note:

I'll take it a step further and explain my position on the emotional and subjective aspects of morality. Whatever your values are, you acquire an emotional corollary for each. This is true even when you are not aware of your own values (many people aren't). Emotions are immediate responses to internal values. Because people feel emotions before they have considered their values, they often think their emotions should determine their values (it just feels wrong), when in reality their values triggered their emotion in the first place.

1 point

Your argument remains that our subjective self-valuation somehow translates into an objective value simply because it exists.

My argument is that things have properties and that a property of living things is that valuation of life. Without it, there would not be living things. Nothing outside of the living is capable of valuation. How values make you feel is subjective, but their presence is an objective property.

The human formulation of codes of conduct is what is required by human nature to maintain the property of valuation. A code of conduct in this instance is not subjective to humans, but a property of life in the context of humanity.

Since I am arguing that self-valuation is a property of life, it isn't subjective. "How" the valuation is perceived/felt/acted on is subjective, "that" it is perceived is an objective property.

Side Note: No I haven't. I will do that. In the mean time, if you have any unanswered posts that happen to come to mind, please remind me here. Otherwise, I will get it when I get it, or not.

1 point

Jail time would not be affected. In fact, having equal jail time would be essential to equating the cost of crimes between individuals. If a poor person is to lose 100% of his/her wages whilst being in jail, so also would a rich person, and ergo they should be given equal jail time.

1 point

Let's try this again without the extended distraction from the point.

If a way of behaving is necessary for survival then it would be called instinct.

If the organism doesn't "just know", then it isn't simply instinct.

Your second paragraph is mostly assertions about which concludes with the end of all life. Since I know that you believe this is happening, and I am not arguing that an objective morality is practiced, the potentially absurd statement is mute.

humans can interact naturally without morals and would still survive.

Humans need a code of conduct, especially under conditions of interaction. This internalized code becomes morality. What I am arguing is that humans need a code, not necessarily that they use the objectively best code.

I have argued (poorly) elsewhere concerning non-human animals. I don't consider morals concerning other animals since I have no way to know. However, some people have studied quite and "Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

PS I didn't read the entire article.

1 point

The YES argument is, in many cases incapable of rendering justice.

Example:

A wealthy individual is charged and convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing someone while drunk driving. They receive a sentence of 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

A penniless individual is charged and convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing someone while drunk driving. They receive a sentence of 30 days in prison, because they are poor.

The YES argument is simply another example of the false notion that success needs to be punished. COMPLETELY INVALID

Amarel(99) Clarified
1 point

How can something be an objective moral if one cannot have awareness of it?

Replace "cannot" with "does not".

They same way people can build a house without awareness of the methods for the best possible house.

1 point

should be able to prove why suffering is a bad thing in the first place.

Suffering is bad in a few ways. First off it's bad by definition. A person can't want to suffer and have it still count. Suffering is to be avoided. Second, it's bad based on evolution. Mammals have nervous systems to help avoid that which is detrimental to life. When they are unable to avoid, they suffer. The nervous system is an objective property of human beings. Thus, the avoidance of suffering is an objective trait, a universal human value. It should be considered that morality if for living human beings. The avoidance of suffering is required for the maintenance of life. If life isn't valued, then you aren't part of the moral equations since you're dead.

I don't see how any end goal can be objectively proven to be the right end goal.

The feelings of right and wrong that we associate with morality are only produced when a specific code of conduct is internalized. While a given code of conduct may have a number of goals or fundamental values, the most basic goal concerns life. If you want to argue that life isn't an objective value, I would ask who values it. The answer is living things. Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going. If are not an organism with automatic mechanisms or instincts to do what needs to be done, you need a code of conduct. As humans we naturally internalize ours and call it morality. Thus a code of conduct, which we eventually turn into morals, is a required aspect of the human life, which is the objective end goal.

0 points

The Athenian form of government was a Democracy not a Republic. In a Democracy it is ruled by the majority. This means that the majority decides the laws, freedoms, and other actions of the state. In a Republic it is the law that drives the state. It is meant to protect all of the persons in the state. Its name is derived from Latin Res Publica, of the public or commonwealth encompassing all people not just the majority. Also the classic Greco democracy (under Pericles) did not arise until the latter half of the 5th century BC (440's and 430's bc). the Roman Republic was officially established in 509 bc. rights were extended with the creation of the Twelve Tables of law (450's bc) tribunes, much like our supreme court, during the mid 5th century (extended to ten later), and the assemblies, which were heavily influenced by the Greek democracy, first created in the 5th century and then gained more power through the 4th and 3rd centuries.

1 point

Organized religion does correlate with reduced criminal behavior in multiple controlled studies. However, what these studies generally fail to demonstrate is a causal effect of religion upon that reduction. What actually matters more? The religious delusions or the organization into a community structure that can be done without the former?

1 point

In that case not believing in Santa Claus is a religion. Just a stupid question. "Hey you believe in God?".."No." How is that a religion?

1 point

I always assumed that it meant "Set the overdrive please.", because all caps words are usually acronyms

It's a very useful sign. My vehicle's increased speed after setting OD has prevented me from getting t-boned, by all of those reckless drivers.

1 point

An Atheist does not have to explain anything to you. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It's as simple as that. Saying I'm an atheist does not mean I believe the Big Bang Theory, although I do, It just means I don't believe in the God Hypothesis. Also, If that doesn't make sense to you how does a god have time to create time and space? And If you're just going to say he can do anything, then why create time in the first place?

1 point

An Atheist does not have to explain anything to you. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It's as simple as that. Saying I'm an atheist does not mean I believe the Big Bang Theory, although I do, It just means I don't believe in the God Hypothesis. Also, If that doesn't make sense to you how does a god have time to create time and space? And If you're just going to say he can do anything, then why create time in the first place?

1 point

See how much I respect Cartman :)

1 point

Again funny specifically because the statement is idiotic . .

1 point

Saying that you don't think X exists because you have checked it out is stupid.

atypican(4143) Clarified
1 point

It's a joke BECAUSE of how idiotic the statement is .


1 of 17 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.