- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
All laws are not a point of debate never have been never will be. Is what it is unless one wants to take on the powers that be.
So, they are never debatable until they are??
Is it ok to debate something like:
"Can anyone tell me where marriage is mentioned in the 14th Amendment."
does 3/3 really equal 1 or does it equal 0.999 repeating?
Ah - brings me back to my very first post
The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low.
Increased Efficiency will keep CO2 levels down but that will be taxation from the government.
It doesn't require taxation if people just put greater emphasis on efficiency themselves.
Even if we need to use government taxation to capture the costs of externalities, so what - that is a valid function of government. Does the invisible hand of the free market capture the demands of future generations? No? Then we need a different way to account for those demands.
government can't control the environment
to bad you don't understand that !
"to" bad, indeed.
What you are doing is trying to justify your life.
Or, is religion the way you try to justify your life? Did you ever ask yourself if God gave Neanderthals a purpose?
Wisdom teeth will give your jaw a little extra strength
Based on what?
About 100% of Mexicans don't get wisdom teeth - do they have naturally weaker jaws - or, are they one of the most prolific countries for boxing champions in the world?
What's your next stupid question?
Why move on to the next question before you answer any of the previous ones?
You see the stuff in front of you and are using it. That is proof it exists.
What I see in front of me is morals that differ from culture to culture and from time to time. Is that proof that subjective morality exists? It certainly isn't evidence for an objective one.
its not my job to provide evidence for someone else's claim.
The original question was raised by Deli_Subs - "Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument."
You chose to defend the position that objective morality exists: "What I mean by objectively moral is that something is right or wrong regardless of how I may think or feel. Some of the proof is in the fact that everyone would say that some things are right or wrong."
Therefore, the onus of defending the claim that objective morality does exist is yours.
No, Russell's teapot/onus probandi does not only apply to things that can be proven/disproven scientifically. Do you believe I have an incorporeal, perpetually flying, heatless-fire breathing dragon in my garage because it can't be disproven scientifically? Or, that there is a unicorn at the center of the sun? etc.
Things like truth, morality, and freedom would have no rational reason to exist
Sure they would - groups are stronger than individuals, and group dynamics requires a certain level of honesty, etc. Therefore, evolution favored these traits.
yo have to assume that there is no need to improve
If one believes they have been given an objective moral code from god, they would have no reason to improve. If people know they are imperfect and that they only have a subjective perspective on things, they may be more persuadable.
We as a country used to own slaves, but don't anymore and in fact forbid it.
Human rights didn't change.
Did rights for women change? Did we not think them human?
This is a difference in the understanding of rape rather than morality
Difference in understanding is what subjective means.
Whats different is peoples definition of just
Difference definition of just is what subjective means.
Abortion being considered self-defense
Again - whether abortion is self-defense is better handled in a separate debate.
Please address when self-defense is justified killing and when is it murder. If someone is stealing food from your refrigerator can you kill them? What if they are stealing your TV?
A difference in understanding of what constitutes murder does not mean that morality is subjective.
That is exactly what it means.
Murder is still wrong even if someone does a mercy killing.
So, if a person has a terminal disease and is in chronic pain and wishes to die, but they can't do it themselves - killing them is objectively murder?
Necessity, spying, and eminent domain are not just causes for the unlawful taking of something that isn't yours
Says who? Since humans allow all of those things.
Just because someone tries to justify a wrong doing by redefining it, that doesn't make what they do any less wrong
Again - different understandings and justifications and relative weighing of the factors involved is exactly what subjective is.
An objective morality makes it wrong regardless of whether or not someone like me or someone else thinks so
You are left with 2 possibilities - either an objective morality does not exist, or it exists in a way that humans cannot reliably access it. Making it either non-existent, or worthless.
Its either nonexistent/unnattainable or it isn't.
It can be unattainable for one and rational for another - because it is subjective.
You think you have the right to exist outside of Hell
You keep trying to tell everyone their motivation - apparently not realizing that it is not much of an argument and that it is just as easily pointed back at you.
e.g. you only believe what you believe in hopes of going to a heaven - not based on evidence.
If you don't think they are vestigial, then tell us what the purpose would be of a second centromere and extra telomeres would be on a chromosome.
And, why they just so happen to line up where one would expect during the process of a chromosomal fusion.
While you're at it, explain the benefits of wisdom teeth - perhaps they are where you get your wisdom...