BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[marcelpo]

KNIGHT:"Therefore we have a different word for killing, when the killing is wrong and that word is murder."

Ah, the circular reasoning arguement. I untill now believed that KNIGHT might have a chance, but this is the WORST arguement that he could brong onto the table.

"A killing that is wrong is Murder". "Is murder always wrong?"

Basically, what he asks is this: "Is a tasty icecream ever NOT tasty?" And expects that this proves that tasty icecream is always tasty. Unfortunately for him, it doesn't prove anything, since the property you ask for is included into its DEFINITION! He would now have to prove that "always tasty icecream" actually exists. for this, he would have to go through every POSSIBLE situation and compare "icecream with everything else that could be put onto the table and would have to ask every single person's opinion on the matter.

www.dictionary.com
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Note that these definitions do NOT include ANYTHING relating towards right or wrong. Since KNIGHT has a different definition of MURDER from everyone else, KNIGHT then has to show that Murder as he defines it actually exists.

Everyone keeping score should deduct 1 point from KNIGHTS score.

 

[marcelpo]

>>You are wrong. They definitely believe that murder is wrong - they just don’t believe that they are committing it themselves. If a Jewish person were to do the same to them, you can bet that they would be crying “murder!” from every rooftop.<<

Ofcourse. Its the other way around as well. Jews say that suicide bombers are murderers, but ofcourse their assasination of the Hamas leader isn't Murder because it isn't wrong.

Same with 11-9-2001. The Jihad warriors didn't think it was muder, but the US did. Afganistan was the other way around. Afgans called it Murder, yet the US did not call it Murder.

Basically, what is "right" or "wrong" in this case is defined by your POLITICAL AGENDA. Now, could POLITICAL AGENDA be some absolte, unchanging non-human thing?

 

[novice]

Marcelpo writes:

Ah, the circular reasoning arguement. I untill now believed that KNIGHT might have a chance, but this is the WORST arguement that he could brong onto the table.

It would only be circular reasoning if "killing" and "murder" were completely synonymous and they are not which is why Knights point is so effective.

Marcelpo writes:

Note that these definitions do NOT include ANYTHING relating towards right or wrong. Since KNIGHT has a different definition of MURDER from everyone else, KNIGHT then has to show that Murder as he defines it actually exists.

LOL did you read your own definition????

"unlawfully"
"brutally"
"inhumanly"
"unlawful killing"
"premeditated malice"

All of the above words were contained in your dictionary definition of murder and all of those words are grounded in "wrongness". Especially the word "malice" which is in every definition of the word murder I have ever viewed, "malice" means "evil intent". How can something have "evil intent" without being wrong?

 

[Brother Vinny]

Everyone keeping score should deduct 1 point from KNIGHTS score.

I'd say cutting in half one's original estimate of marcelpo's IQ would be more appropriate.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Eireann,

Re: Eireann,

Originally posted by Becky
The fact that humans can conceive of absolute standards, even if they don’t agree on how those standards apply to them, is evidence that such standards must exist. ...

Not really, Becky. All known human civilizations have conceptions of their own versions of creatures of faerie, talking animals, sentient vegetation, mental illness being caused by demons, and the like. But that doesn't mean they actually exist...

Using human belief to justify the existence of something you cannot prove is a very weak position.

 

[Brother Vinny]

All known human civilizations have conceptions of. . . sentient vegetation, . . . . But that doesn't mean they actually exist.

 

[Valmoon]

LOL Paul. Nice to have a lighhearted moment during some of these discussions.

 

[Prisca]

marcelpo,

marcelpo,

You said, “Of course. Its the other way around as well. Jews say that suicide bombers are murderers, but of course their assasination of the Hamas leader isn't Murder because it isn't wrong.”

That’s my point. Both understand the concept of murder, but both apply it relatively to themselves. Maybe you didn’t understand my point. There are three possibilities here: one is murder and the other isn’t, both are murder, or neither is murder. The fact remains that murder is a true action that is wrong. A killing that is not wrong is not murder.

You said, “Basically, what is "right" or "wrong" in this case is defined by your POLITICAL AGENDA.”

Do you really believe this?

You asked, “Now, could POLITICAL AGENDA be some absolte, unchanging non-human thing?”

“Politics” relates to human government, therefore it can’t be considered absolute or unchanging. But words have meaning and the very word “murder” implies a wrong-doing. As I said before, what is relative is the application of the term, not the reality of it.

 

[Prisca]

Zakath,

Zakath,

You said, “Using human belief to justify the existence of something you cannot prove is a very weak position.”

So I take it that your answer to Knight would be, “No, there is no such thing as murder”?

 

[novice]

Re: Zakath,

Re: Zakath,

Originally posted by Becky

So I take it that your answer to Knight would be, “No, there is no such thing as murder”?

KABOOM!

 

[Zakath]

Re: Zakath,

Re: Zakath,

Originally posted by Becky

So I take it that your answer to Knight would be, “No, there is no such thing as murder”?

No, my answer would be that there are no moral absolutes. While the definition of murder might be similar from one society to another, each one tends to excuse its own actions as not being "real" murder.

It's a bit like Knight's adopting the "collateral damage" to describe the victims of biblical slaughters ordered by YHWH. When other people do it to the Jews it's evil and murder, when the Jews commit genocide it's "collateral damage".

 

[marcelpo]

>>It would only be circular reasoning if "killing" and "murder" were completely synonymous and they are not which is why Knights point is so effective.<<

Did you even READ my post? He defined "murder" as "wrongfull killing" then asked "is murder ever wrong" in other words he asked "is wrongfull killing ever NOT wrong". Ofcourse it isn't but that is because of his definition of "murder".

Lets turn the definition around. "Murder is rightfull Killing." (my definition) " Is murder ever NOT right?". Does this mean that I have PROVEN that Murder is alway right? NOPE.

>>LOL did you read your own definition????

1 "unlawfully"
2 "brutally"
3 "inhumanly"
4 "unlawful killing"
5 "premeditated malice"<<

Yes. Several of these terms are MEASURABLE (unlawfull surely is, premeditated can be determined by evidence). Brutal, inhuman and malice are SUBJECTIVE terms, and as such two different jury's would disagree as to whether a killing qualifies as "murder". Since they would disagree, these terms are too subjective to depend upon.

Now, when a person is killed we DON"T know if it is "murder" untill this (number 1) definition is applied. Thus, it is only Murder if the killing was "unlawfull". Now, for killing to be unlawfull, there MUST be a law. Thus, Murder DEPENDS ALWAYS on the presence of a law.

The Law is a written down system of rules. These rules are based on what the society sees as "justice" most of the times. Ofcourse, different societies have different ideas about justice and as such have different rules. Therefore what is an "unlawfull" killing is mostly defined by the rules of SOCIETY. What would qualify as "murder" in one society would NOT qualify as "murder" in another. How can something "absolute" NOT exist everywhere?

>>I'd say cutting in half one's original estimate of marcelpo's IQ would be more appropriate.<<

Ah yes, lets REWARD circular reasoning as a debating tactic. LOL

>>As I said before, what is relative is the application of the term, not the reality of it.<<

The REALITY is is that "murder" is a WORD. That something has a NAME doesn't mean it actually exists. If you think that everything that has a name actually exists:

Cold and Warmth
Darkness and Light
Silence and Sound

Of these terms, only one exists. The other does NOT. But it has a name, so clearly even things that DON'T exist have a name. Now, "murder" is a name but that doesn't prove that Murder exists.

>>The fact remains that murder is a true action that is wrong. A killing that is not wrong is not murder. <<

Lets instead apply your definition. Now, we have a killed human being. This is the fact from which we start. HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE BY OBJECTIVE MEANS (THUS ABSOLUTE MEANS) THAT IT WAS MURDER? For this to be possible, you need to MEASURE "wrongness" using an objective measurement. Unfortunately for you, THERE ARE NONE.

Game over. Please insert coin.

 

[Lion]

Kangaroo court

Kangaroo court

Marsupial-

Lets instead apply your definition. Now, we have a killed human being. This is the fact from which we start. HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE BY OBJECTIVE MEANS (THUS ABSOLUTE MEANS) THAT IT WAS MURDER? For this to be possible, you need to MEASURE "wrongness" using an objective measurement. Unfortunately for you, THERE ARE NONE.

Then you must make the statement that there is no such thing as murder.

So, in the example Knight gave, the forty-year old man did not murder the little girl.

And that’s where your ridiculous philosophy leads you.

You are a sick little kangaroo.

As for there having to be a law for something to be wrong, I would agree. However your definition of what a law is is very subjective. Where as the real law is absolute and is written on our hearts.

So here is the question for you; If You, your mother, your father and I are stranded on a desert island, in international waters, and I decide that I am king and order your mother to mate with me, and kill your father when he objects. Is it wrong? How about when I tie you up while I am mating with her? Is that wrong? We don’t have a written law, as I have just crowned myself and haven’t had time to come up with a written system yet. But don’t worry I’ll get around to that. Oh and if you do happen to get away and try to stop me and then I shoot you in the stomach and let you bleed slowly to death in the sand, well… I guess that might be construed as killing… right? Since there is no such thing as murder?

Now I understand it might be wrong to do that to you and your family in your eyes, but hey, you are now dead so what do I care? And since it’s all relative then my right is just as valid as your right. Right?

 

[cirisme]

Knight... stop posting those hilarious pics!!! I'm about to suffocate from all the laughing!! :thumb:

 

[Lion]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

"Z"-So, is there any type of killing, or any example of a killing that is murder?

Oh and you miss Becky's point completely, as well as Knight's. It doesn't matter if the Israelis say one act is murder while the Palestinians claim it is killing. The point is that both recognize it as murder when it is done to them. So is it murder? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, as Knight stated so adroitly. But if it is ever murder, instead of just killing then there has to be an absolute standard that makes it so.

So the only answer you can possibly adhere to, and not appear silly and contradictory, is that there is no such thing as murder, just as Becky said.

 

[Valmoon]

Before I critique Knights 5th post I wanted to say I am enjoying reading and responding to the arguments. I may totally disagree with Knight and his argumentation but I do appreciate both Zak's and Knight's willingness to argue their views. (ok on to my post)

Posted by Knight:

"Is Zakath conceding that absolute morality exists???

Zakath's entire post #5 is a request that I discuss the origin of absolute morality. If Zakath rejects absolute morality, why investigate its origin? I waste no time discussing the origin of little green men from Mars because I know that little green men from Mars do not exist. If I remember correctly, the topic of the debate was "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" NOT "What is the origin of absolute morality?""

I would think that when one attempts to assert that absolute morals exist that their origin would be pretty important as well. Zakath has already shown how relative human standards in regard to morality are. Questioning Zakath's intent on trying to get you to actually argue for an affirmitive view of the topic seems rather flimsy to me.

Posted by Knight:

"This is untrue. I have asserted that rape and murder are absolutely wrong. It is now up to Zakath to provide examples of rape and murder that are not wrong."

Dang Knight tko's himself with this remark. What a neat debating strategy this would be. The topic could be: Do the Laws of Physics apply when all matter is a singularity? If Knight took the affirmitive we can already guess at his major arguments. "I have already asserted that gravity and such and such apply, now it is up to my opponent to show this isnt true." Holy cow. Is all that is needed in a debate just an assertion?

Knight earlier said that if he can show that one behavior or action is absolutely wrong that he wins the debate. That seemed like an honest statement. Knight earlier spoke of a "trick" people who believe in relative morality use. Yikes it appears Knight has the best "trick" in the book. Now he just says, "I assert that at least one behavior or action is absolutely wrong" and expects us to accept that one can change the topic that he earlier AGREED to into the following topic: Can Zakath prove abosolute morality does not exist?

Knight apparently checked himself and his earlier claims that for himself to win he had to show that at least one behavior or action is absolutely wrong. He must have seen the writing on the wall. Now according to Knight all he needed to do to "show" that at least one behavior or action is absolutely wrong is simply to make that assertion. If Knight had been cast in Tom Cruise's role in Jerry Maquire I can see the new plot line now. When Gooding Jr shouts, "show me the money" Knight would just assert that Gooding Jr was a millionaire and Jr would have hung up broke but satisfied.

 

[Eireann]

There is one important fact that everyone is missing here. According to the agreed-upon definition that Knight gave, absolute morals must stem from something that supercedes human experience and standards. The few paltry attempts he has made to support the existence of absolute morals have been in the form of questions asking such things as "what do you believe," or "how would you define this," or "do you think ...?" Notice that he is asking questions that are framed within the context of human experience, standards, and interpretations. If he wants to show that morals supercede human experience, then he is going to need to use an argument that supercedes human experience, as opposed to the one he is using which relies on human experience. After all, he's asking humans what they think. Do you suppose he has asked the same questions and gotten answers from anything that "supercedes" humanity? He is basically working against himself and is well on his way to proving the relativists position.

 

[marcelpo]

>>And that’s where your ridiculous philosophy leads you.

You are a sick little kangaroo.<<

Please keep personal attacks out of this.

>>But if it is ever murder, instead of just killing then there has to be an absolute standard that makes it so.<<

In my opinion, it would be wrongfull killing. In your opinion, it would be wrongfull killing. As you pointed out, why would you care about my opinion (other than the fact that we're bedating this)? Well, you probably wouldn't.

The problem is this: if you define murder as "wrongfull killing" in a law then my FIRST question would be: who's opinion on right and wrong are you asking? If you think that something is "right" or "wrong" with respect to some absolute authority, then please provide the evidence that absolute authority exists. If you CANNOT provide this, then according to YOUR definition ( which would REQUIRE some measurement of "wrongness" to determine if a killing is a murder) murder doesn't exist.

What DOES exists are laws
www.dictionary.com LAW:
"A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
Custom is defined by society. Agreement is defined by society. Authority is defined by society. If you disagree with any of these, then show some "absolute" custom, agreement or authority that would "supersede" our own.

This is why "murder" is defined by www.dictionary.com as "unlawfull killing", since it is easy to determine if something is against the law. The law is not the same as "right" or "wrong", but it comes close to what a huge majority of that society would feel is "right" or "wrong".

>>The point is that both recognize it as murder when it is done to them. So is it murder? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, as Knight stated so adroitly. But if it is ever murder, instead of just killing then there has to be an absolute standard that makes it so.<<

One killing can be wrong in the eyes of person A while right in the eyes of person B. Can a single killing be both "right" and "wrong" AT THE SAME TIME? You are saying that they are mutually exclusive. Yet how would you MEASURE if something was "wrong" or "right"? Which person would be correct and which wouldn't be?

What I say is this: different people would have DIFFERENT opinions on the killings. As such, what one would call "murder' another would call "killing" (or not even that). As such, "murder' exists only in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty and all other subjective human things.

Now, if you have proof that there IS some way of determining if a killing is "right" or "wrong" the please SHOW it to me. If you can't then "murder" as you defined exists only in the eye of the beholder.

 

[marcelpo]

We could also reverse the arguement. If an absolute authority DOES exist and the rightness and wrongness of an action is plain to see for everyone, then why would different people see the same action differently? If there was an absolute authority then every person would be able to see that what he does is "wrong" and he would stop immediately (well, most people would).

Since there are as many opinions on matters of "right" and "wrong" as there are people on this planet, the existence of an absolute authority leads to a contradiction between our observations and what we would expect to see.

Game over, please insert coin.

 

[Tirmie]

I think Zakath is winning this debate, hands down. Mind you, I'm a Christian--I disagree with him--but he's winning the debate.

Knight says:

Zakath says:

Since he is arguing the affirmative, he is to attempt to prove that absolute morality exists. He has repeatedly made the claim that it exists without backing up his claim.

This is untrue. I have asserted that rape and murder are absolutely wrong. It is now up to Zakath to provide examples of rape and murder that are not wrong.

Excuse me, Knight? You made the assertion, and the burden of proof is on your opponent to prove your assertion wrong? That simply makes no sense.

Your job is to prove that absolute morality exists. Not to defend the idea of absolute morality, but to establish it. The definition you have agreed to is:

"Absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong."

You further argued--correctly--that your position is proven if you can demonstrate just one absolute standard, just one action that is always wrong or is always right. As far as I can tell, you have not even attempted to prove an absolute standard. All you have done is claim that some things are absolutely always wrong, given two examples, and challenged Zakath to prove you wrong.

Knight, you cannot establish a position by saying "It's true unless you prove me wrong."