CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Lolzors93

Reward Points:3225
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
91%
Arguments:4304
Debates:109
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Redefining is not equivalent to saying that God is the basis of something. If I say that the physical is the basis of the psychological, it would not mean that the psychological is the physical. The definitions remain the same; the bases are not the same as definitions.

0 points

Killing babies would not be immoral, if God were not real.

1 point

How did I redefine it? I simply use God as the basis for morality. It's simply false to say that I redefine it.

Also, defining things with dictionaries in philosophical inquiry is never smart. Dictionaries give general notions, not technical.

So, I don't see your point at all.

1 point

I don't want to die so I assume babies wouldn't want to die either. One of the nice things I experience in life is growing up and enjoying a variety of things, I want babies to do the same. The act of a baby dying makes the parents of the child suffer. It all comes down to minimising suffering and maximising enjoyment.

Who cares about your wants? I might not want to die as a criminal, but that has no basis for saying that I should not die by the hand of my executioner. You're applying the Golden Rule way to way too extreme of situations. And, you completely forget what I said after: how you moral intuitions would be shaped if humanity were to be commanded differently, in that, babies would be killed morally. So, you're begging the question.

0 points

I literally laughed out loud. What reason or logic have you used?

1 point

Either genocide is not objectively wrong and we don't know it, or genocide is not conducive to survival. I would suggest the later. How many great minds, that Hitler might have otherwise commanded, simply went up in smoke?

You can easily consider genocide that does not kill intellectual people. Genocide of all mentally retarded, children, elderly, disabled, etc. would still be considered wrong. Genocide is very much so conducive to survival, if based in some aspect of eugenics. Thus, genocide is conducive to survival, and the genocide is not wrong. If this is the case, then it raises the question: how did we get a belief that genocide is wrong?

And if genocide is not wrong, then we can list off numerous other things that we know to be morally wrong that have survival conducive elements: rape, theft, etc. You have the burden of proof to find something that is morally wrong, if you are going to challenge the objective moral notion of genocide, rape, and theft, as those, if anything, are the obvious cases of objective morality.

All evidence is gathered in hindsight.

That is begging the question. When doing inductive reasoning, maybe through history or science, you cannot look at things in hindsight to prove what is plausible. Hindsight only proves what is factually correct. Thus, your argument begs the question. You must look at things from a set forth notion, at the beginning of evolution: how implausible gathering objective moral understanding or moral intuitions would be, if undirected.

If evolution brings a sense of morality, then morality must be conducive to survival. If we have a moral sense that is not conducive to survival, then we will evolve past it or die out. This is plausible. We are now better at survival than we once were.

This begs the question. We know that there are things that are conducive to survival: rape, for one.

All in all, your argument begs the question by looking at things in hindsight and ignoring the implausibility notion.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

I've got to go. Peace.

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

it is wrong to do to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself etc. I believe realistically this is what it is for you deep down too...

I agree with that. Thats the Golden Rule in the Bible (Matthew 7). That does not mean, though, that it applied in all situations, as a criminal might not want done to him what justice requires of him.

If you saw someone being stoned in the street, screaming in agony for hours for kissing another man and then finally dying in a pool of blood.... I can't believe you'd watch that and then turn to your friend and say "they did right".

I would.

1 point

The problem still runs, but is made deeper. You're, what appears to me, looking at things in hindsight: we have moral intuitions, and we have understanding, so we just got understanding and moral intuitions from evolution, though it just so happened to happen. The problem with this is obvious: from a starting point, evolution does not have an end. Its only end is survival. It is, thusly implausible to say that we would get understanding, let alone understand or have moral intuitions about morality. I never said that this is a necessary argument; it can easily be imagined that God is not required here, in a possible world. The issue is plausibility: a blind evolutionary process that makes us believe genocide is wrong, when genocide is conducive to survival? In what way is this reason giving?

lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

No, there are some laws in the Old Testament that do apply, and can be applied today. One of the groupings is sexual immorality, as the New Testament makes clear that is immoral. Dress is said in the New Testament to be fine. So, no, stoning others for homosexual actions, if the government were to regulate it, would be moral, as the law is still under moral law.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: God exists.
Winning Position: I do not agree with Greek
Winning Position: Life
Winning Position: Redemption
Winning Position: "How God turns a French atheist into a Christian theologian"
Winning Position: Means

About Me


"If you have any questions, just ask! Don't be shy!"

Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Religion: Protestant
Education: In College

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here