BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Eireann]

Knight is doing rather poorly, if you ask me. So far, he has not attempted to support his position.

Zakath has supported his position. His position is that morals are relative. He has attempted to demonstrate the relativity of morals, and to answer questions that Knight has posed.

Knight's positition is that morals are absolute, but so far, all he's done is ask Zak questions and attempt to dismantle Zak's arguments (and done a rather dismal job of that). Knight is squandering his posts by concentrating on trying to tear down Zak's position rather than building his own. Knight needs to concentrate on trying to demonstrate how morals are absolute. He hasn't even begun to do that yet. He hasn't addressed that issue, which is primary to his position. He's letting Zakath divert his attention from his goal.

Score so far:

Knight: -1
Zakath: 2
(remember, I took off a point from both of them in round 2)

Remember, it isn't about who is right or wrong, or whether you agree with one side or the other. It is about who is doing the best job of presenting his argument. Knight hasn't begun his argument. He is not addressing morals as absolutes. Until he begins to do that, he will not gain one point from me.

 

[mjwhite]

Dear Eireann,

you said:
Why is murder a violation of morals in every culture? Is it because every human being thinks it is wrong? Heck, no! Clearly there are plenty of people who don't think it's wrong, though the vast majority of us do think it's wrong. It is a moral imperitive not to murder because murder reduces the numbers. If murder were allowed to go unchecked in any given society, then the very survival of that society would be in serious jeopardy. I mean, if the members of the society kill each other off, then there won't be any members of the society. Applewhite's Heaven's Gate cult was a society. They all died. That society no longer exists.

Please correct me if i have you wrong.
Are you saying the majority of the society dictates the morals? More is right, less than is wrong? Might makes right?

What is wrong with a society kiilling itself off if that is what they want to do? Wht even preserve yourself?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Knight is doing an ok job at handling Zak's points but I agree with Eire that he needs to start building his own case as well.

Pilgrim

 

[Jaltus]

Eir,

Shouldn't your scoring be:

Knight -1
Zak 1

After all, -1 + 2 = 1.

I have it as 1:1, since Knight won a round, Zak won 1, and the other was a draw.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath
So when a religionist uses your logical construct, it's valid logic, and an atheist uses it, it's circular reasoning...

That's pretty good BS, goose. You seem to have invented user-specific logic, goose. It only works for religionists...

Perhaps you should patent it, I could use it in my garden to fertilize my wife's flowers...

I'm talking about absolute truths here, Zakath. You're assuming that there is some truth outh there. You're trying to use it. Relativism is self-refuting when you try to get truth from others. And if one person said, "relativism is false" you would have to accept that as a relativist, and it would be false. If you said "no, relativism ISN'T false", then you would be accepting a truth outside of relativism, and you would then believe in an absolute truth, of some type.

 

[Goose]

Ouch. Knight licked him good with that 3rd Round post.

 

[Sasquatch]

Howdy brother Goose...

I was wondering if you could comment on my post addressed to you oh, about 35 posts back... If not, I understand. I don't want to clip it and waste everyone's space - if you want to read it, you will.

Grace, peace and mercy...

 

[bill betzler]

I think Knight did a great job in post 3. He strategically placed himself on the board. The focus of the debate has now narrowed. Zakath is not out but the debate begins.

Knight has asked if rape is ethically wrong. Wisely, countering the obvious next move of the relativist, Knight says the debate isn't on any particular deed that is determined not to be a rape.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Eireann

It depends on which capacity you have the individuals working in. Society is comprised of individuals, so morals are set by individuals, but only by individuals working in unison as a society. I suppose, when you get right down to it, each of us adopts our own behavioral code (that is to say, we're not programmed like robots), but the behavioral code we adopt for ourselves is based upon the moral codes set by the society of which we are part. Morals are behavioral codes, too, but they are there to govern and facilitate interactions between individuals. In order to be considered a moral code, at least two people are required (unless you have MPD and are able to interact with yourself). Thus, morals supercede the individual as an individual, and affect the individual as a component of a
society.

You said that morals are not defined by the individual, but rather society so I assumed that was what you meant. I think what you meant to say is that morals can be both defined by the individual and society, but it depends on which capacity you have the individuals working in. I guess the question to ask is how does a society work in unison to define morals when each individual has his own perception of morality? How do you get two people to agree on anything? Is there a standard used? If so, how does the society decide which standard to use?
thanks
ac

ps I just looked at your profile. You are a musician? Cool. Do you play an instrument or do you sing? Oh and what kind of music you play?

 

[marcelpo]

While Knight is trying to counter the arguements of Zakath, he is NOT working on any arguments of his own. Zakath is doing a good job of trying to support his position that morals are relative, but Knight isn't working on his position that morals are absolute.

Knight: "Murder and rape, when properly defined are both absolutely wrong. "

This was not the point of the debate. The point was to PROVE that these two "Murder" and "Rape" are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Knight CLAIMS they are, but hasn't shown that they ARE absolutely wrong. To show that they are ABSOLUTELY wrong, he must show the EXISTENCE of absolute moral values, which he so far hasn't done.

 

[bill betzler]

I think the existence of God is absolute. Not provable. But then humanity in it's fullness is relative to God since God didn't have to make humanity.

Hence the Christian, without apology, accepts the moral framework that God gives us without the necessity of it being universally accepted or absolute in human standards. It is absolute to us and all of humanity would benefit from it since the cause and effect actions of God do affect all humanity regardless if some believe in him or not.

bill

 

[Vitamin J]

I just don't get it?

I realize everyone has an opinion but how could anyone think Zakath has won a round?

I am not trying to be a jerk but seriously???? I don't get it!

When Zakath answered Knights first question by saying "no" (he actually answered "yes" but meant "no") he was stating that he thinks things are "wrong" even if the individual, society or government have determined they are "right"! That is contradictory to the relativist stance from the get go.

It would have been much harder for Knight to win the debate if Zakath has answered "yes" in that ultimately NOTHING is wrong. Although you would have to have a seared conscience to say that. :nono:

Just my 1 cent

 

[Valmoon]

Saying, "I think that picture is beautiful" doesnt make it so. I think Zakath realizes that saying "I think such and such is wrong" doesnt make it so either. But that doesnt mean he cant hold to his own views.

Knight has demonstrated NO absolutes. According to the topic how anyone believes he has "won" a round seems rather suprising.

If at the end of the debate Knight clearly out argued Zakath on whether local community standards are constitutional he wouldnt have "won" the debate when the topic has nothing to do with what was being argued.

When Knight is able to prove the existence of moral absolutes I will gladly salute him to a victory.

 

[anna]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
I just don't get it?

I realize everyone has an opinion but how could anyone think Zakath has won a round?

I am not trying to be a jerk but seriously???? I don't get it!

When Zakath answered Knights first question by saying "no" (he actually answered "yes" but meant "no") he was stating that he thinks things are "wrong" even if the individual, society or government have determined they are "right"! That is contradictory to the relativist stance from the get go.

It would have been much harder for Knight to win the debate if Zakath has answered "yes" in that ultimately NOTHING is wrong. Although you would have to have a seared conscience to say that. :nono:

Just my 1 cent

I think we can say that Zak has won, but only on the basis of HUMAN perception, HUMAN logic. I think bill puts it nicely.
Just because we don't acknowledge the sun does not mean the sun doesn't exist, and just because we can't convince someone to acknowledge the sun's existance, does not mean that we are complete morons. We can have all the evidence in the world, but that will not change those who are unwilling to change. Some do, but that is usually because the change begins with humility. Human logic is arrogant when taken to the extreme, but human logic is useful for communication.
ac

 

[marcelpo]

Well, KNIGHT worded it perfectly: [q] He might then claim, "Well it's just my personal opinion that certain individuals, societies or governments are wrong." I would then rightfully respond..... ”Who cares what your OPINION is?” [/q]

Obviously, the people who care about YOU think your opinion is important. Most of the conflicts in this world have their roots in NOT caring about other peoples opinions. To be able to prevent the most horrid conflicts, we use a system of RULES to govern inter-presonal relations. Nevertheless, this system isn't perfect and conflicts happen due to a clash of opinions on right and wrong.

Now, to be able to win the debate KNIGHT has to show that there is something OTHER than a personal opinion or society/civilisations opinion that determines if an action is right or wrong.

Good luck KNIGHT, you are going to need it.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by mjwhite
Please correct me if i have you wrong.
Are you saying the majority of the society dictates the morals? More is right, less than is wrong? Might makes right?

Sort of, but morals aren't about right/wrong, they are about normal/not-normal. Right/wrong is ethics, which many people confuse with morality, but they are two wholly different areas of philosophy/sociology. But yes, there is power in numbers. The more people within a given society who agree on an ideal, the more likely that ideal is to eventually become the accepted norm, and thus become an established moral. If it becomes accepted as a matter of law, it will become a more (pronounce moray). If it is only informally accepted, it will become a folkway.

What is wrong with a society kiilling itself off if that is what they want to do? Wht even preserve yourself?

Do you know of a society that wants to kill itself off?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Eir,

Shouldn't your scoring be:

Knight -1
Zak 1

After all, -1 + 2 = 1.

I have it as 1:1, since Knight won a round, Zak won 1, and the other was a draw.

In order to actually win a round, in my book, you have to actually be working toward your case. Knight has done that yet, so he cannot have won a round yet, IMHO. But I think you're right in my mistaken calculations:

Round 1: Knight (-1), Zak (1). (Knight docked a point for failing to clarify his question.

Round 2: Knight (-1), Zak (0). (Knight remains at -1, Zak is docked one point for not correctly reading the portion that was clear).

Round 3: Knight (-1), Zak (1). (Knight remains at -1, Zak wins his point back this round.)

Knight will remain at -1 until he either makes another negligence error or begins to actually build his own case.

 

[Eireann]

It's obvious, having read the current results of the debate, that most of the people voting don't actually know how to judge a debate. Most of them (to be expected of course, since most of them are Christians and absolutists) are judging in Knight's favor simply because they share his belief in absolute morality. If they were actually judging knowledgeably based on how well each combatant is actually building/defending his case, then Knight would be losing by a landslide, since he has yet to do either. He can't defend his case, because he hasn't started building one yet.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

well this is all just an opinion poll anyway so you really can't expect anything more.

If the "what's your education level?" thread is any indication, most have never been exposed to formal debate in an academic setting. That being the case most people will automatically judge based on which presenter argues a postion they agree with.

Pilgrim

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
When Zakath answered Knights first question by saying "no" (he actually answered "yes" but meant "no") he was stating that he thinks things are "wrong" even if the individual, society or government have determined they are "right"! That is contradictory to the relativist stance from the get go.

Quite the contrary, it is perfectly within the relativist's stance. Morals, for one thing, govern behavior, not belief. We are free to believe in the rightness or wrongness of something with impunity. We don't have to agree with the rest of society on a moral issue, but it is in our best interest to do one of two things:

1) Behave according to the moral standards of your society
2) Work toward changing the moral standards of your society

But still, as I've pointed out numerous times, and everyone seems to be unwilling to deal with, morals are not about right or wrong, they are simply about behavioral norms. The field that deals with right and wrong is ethics. This debate is not about ethics. If Knight concentrates on issues of right and wrong, as I suspect he will, then he will lose the debate by default, because he will be debating off-topic.