BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Brother Vinny]

It demonstrates (not proof, but demonstrable logic) that the act might not be absolutely wrong with the "rest of the story."

Wrong. The act itself is still absolutely wrong. Zakath has just attrempted to transfer guilt for the absolutely wrong act from the initial man (Ted) to another party (the terrorists). In so doing, Zakath has as much as admitted not only is the act itself inherently wrong, but that responsibility (guilt) for said act has to exist.

Zakath has beautifully illustrated the "bad news" part of the Good News we Christians strive to get across.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Eireann states...

You can tell by his verbal sparring that it jarred Knight.

You can say that again!!!!

I didn't think Zakath was going to "flame out" like this! :crackup: :crackup:

 

[Valmoon]

Eireann I dont think I'm following you. Both parties agreed that if just one action or behavior was shown to be absolutely wrong that Knight wins the debate. Although Zakath isnt admitting that absolutes exist he seems to be arguing through generalizations. Even if one accepted Zakath's conclusion to his scenario that the rape and murder of the girl wasnt absolutely wrong, I dont think it was an effective argument.

It's like attempting to lump all behavior into specific words like rape, and murder and then using premises to show they can be "rightfully" violated. But Knight doesnt have to show that ALL rape is absolutely wrong. As was said earlier, one action or behavior is sufficient for him to win the debate. Zakath's argument just seems to show that generalizations are wrong. But what about acts of rape where there is not "good" intent. Zakath spends a whole post but doesnt really address the issue Knight wants addressed. "If one commits rape or murder merely to suit their own desires" is this wrong? If Zakath didnt want to answer this question he shouldnt have made his last post. Now I think he is obliged to answer or at least sort out what his point was in his last post.

Rather late in the debate to open a new can of worms in my opinion.

I would give the point to Knight in that round.

 

[marcelpo]

>>Wrong. The act itself is still absolutely wrong. <<

"Act: Wrongfull killing is absolutely wrong."
Prove it. You need to demonstrate two things:

1) Wrongness exists.
2) Absoluteness exists.

Failure to do so would relegate the act to merely being "wrong" IN YOUR OPINION, which is ofcourse a totally different thing.

Since Knight has tried to get out of his burden of proof, people started to think he wins the debate. Ofcourse, he isn't winning the debate because quite simply he has NEVER demonstrated that Murder is absolutely wrong. He just CLAIMED that it was, without backing it up. Knight really HAD to do this because he knows that his absolute standard of morality is NOT demonstratable to non-believers.

Now, IF Knight can really demonstrate to us that "absolute wrongness" exists, then he wins the debate. If he can't, then Zakath wins the debate. So far, Knight hasn't demonstrated that "absolute wrongness" exists, thus so far Zakath is really winning the debate. Simple yet effective.

What KNIGHT doesn't seem to understand is that "wrongfull killing" is a subjective term. For him to win, he needs to show that "wrongfull" is an OBJECTIVE term. Now, if he can think of a single scenario which would DEMONSTRATE this absolute wrongness to us (as opposed to mere being wrong in someone's opinion) then he would win. So far he hasn't done that. All he has shown is a scenario which most people would lable as "wrong".

The easiest way to resolve this would be to see what happens if someone would lable the "scenario" as not wrong in his opinion. Zakath has extended the scenario to include circumstances that would change someone (ie mine) opinion from "wrong" to "right". Thus given Zakath's scenario the act of the man was right in my opinion.

Knight will now probably claim that if some killing is found to be "right" then it isn't murder. The problem is that the man commits the same acts in both scenario's, but in Knights it is called Murder and in Zakaths it is called "killing". Thus, whether it is killing or murder would depend on the amount of INFORMATION we have about the circumstances. What would happen if this absolute standard of wrongness were represented with Knights scenario but in reality Zakath's scenario is the one that happened? Simple: the man would be labelled a murderer instead of a killer by the absolute standard. The standard would draw the incorrect conclusion.

Game over, please insert coin.

 

[Valmoon]

Marcelpo I totally agree with you that Knight hasnt met the burden of proof. But I still think Zakath's last post was wasted. It's silly, in my opinion, to argue that some cases of rape might be justified. Because Knight doesnt have to use the words rape or murder in his questions. Eventually he can just ask things that cut right to the chase such as, "is shooting a man in the head absolutely wrong if your only reason is you dont like the color of his hair."

Zakath's strategy doesnt work with these questions so there really isnt any point in pursuing that argument.

 

[LordBinkus]

abolute morality

abolute morality

Can any Christian on this board give a good definition of "absolute morality" and provide an example of "absolute morality" from the Bible?

I gotta tell you, I need some help here. In the Bible, the Christian god murders children, it supports slavery, it repeatedly orders the massacre of men, women and children, and it tortures people for eternity simply because of their opinions. Are murder, slavery, and eternal torture "absolutely wrong," or are they morally right in those instances when the Christian god supports, promotes and commands them? In other words, is the morality displayed in the Bible relativistic? I'm am confused and am hoping a Christian can sort this out for me.

By the way, if you assert that whatever the Christian god does or whatever it commands is morally right, how can you say this? What measuring stick did you use to judge the rightness or wrongness of the Christian god's commands and actions? Your own subjective opinion? The subjective opinion of a minister? The subjective opinions of the people in your church?

Thanks.

Binky Binkus

 

[LordBinkus]

what a dilemma!

what a dilemma!

Knight,

If the Christian god told you to rape and murder a nine year old boy or girl, would it be "absolutely" morally wrong or "absolutely" morally right to do so?

Thanks.

Binky Binkus

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by muldoon
I can't believe what I just read. I was rooting for Zakath but now I am wishing they had chosen a different fighter.

They? Do you mean there's some group that I'm supposed to be representing?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
What an incredibly brilliant strategy by Zakath!!!!!

Zakath creates an argument so stupid that all the onlookers will think the fight is rigged! It's brilliant I tell you, brilliant!!!!!

Merely following the WWE tradition where the winning fighter must be seen to be on the ropes before the victory...

 

[Goose]

Why does it seem that Zakath keeps appealing to some standard of right and wrong? I thought he was a moral relativist.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
Why does it seem that Zakath keeps appealing to some standard of right and wrong? I thought he was a moral relativist.

Actually, my previous post was appealing to World Wrestling Entertainment tradition, not standards...

Oh, you mean during the debate?

I'll let you in on a secret, goose...
I'd venture a guess that even moral relativists have their own private set of standards. The difference between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist is that I acknowledge that my standard may not be seen as either useful or agreeable by someone else.

A moral absolutist, on the other hand, thinks everyone should live by the absolutist's standard of choice, whether they agree with it or not.

In our debate thus far, you may notice that Knight and I have not disagreed even once on whether a single action or incident is "wrong" or "right". We disagree solely on his insistence in tagging his moral preferences as "absolute", making them binding on everyone else.

Does that help?

 

[Goose]

Morality Appears Like Magic!

Morality Appears Like Magic!

How moral relativists defend their morality.

 

[Zakath]

Re: Morality Appears Like Magic!

Re: Morality Appears Like Magic!

Originally posted by Goose
How moral relativists defend their morality.

LOL!!!

Magic?

Hardly!

Remember, "Any sufficiently advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

We cobble our moral standards together the same way everyone else does. We relativists tend to draw from a broader base of human culture and education than most absolutists. We don't need to limit our search for more workable, humane moralities because we think we've already found "The Absolute" as an answer. If one believes they already have all the answers, there's no more reason to study or think or change in response to new situations. If one already has all the answers, there's nothing more to learn...

Generally, an organism that cannot change has already started to die. They may just not be stinking yet.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I find it hard to understand why people think a moral relativist can not have a standard at all. Of course they have a standard, it's just not universal.

I also can not understand how the relativist can then claim to be able to evaluate other standards. The most a relativist can say is that any standard, ultimately, is no better or worse than the next.

Pilgrim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
I find it hard to understand why people think a moral relativist can not have a standard at all. Of course they have a standard, it's just not universal.

I also can not understand how the relativist can then claim to be able to evaluate other standards. The most a relativist can say is that any standard, ultimately, is no better or worse than the next.

Pilgrim

You just answered your own question!

 

[cirisme]

No contest... Knight won this debate. The only hope Zakath has to snatch this debate from the jaws of defeat is making one heck of a final post.

(Is anybody else wondering if zakath intentionally sabatoged this debate? :crackup

 

[Valmoon]

Posted by Knight:

"Simple! Upon the fact that rape, murder and kidnapping are by definition always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong! Zakath has failed to demonstrate that these actions are somehow only wrong relative to the individual, society or government. In fact, Zakath has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the opposite. For Zakath to win the debate he would have to give compelling evidence as to why ANY imaginable (specific or non specific) case of kidnapping, rape or murder is just as right as it is wrong or at very least morally neutral."

The fact that definitions can change shows how empty this argument is. This is a word game if I ever saw it. Knight hasnt showed anyone by what authority another group of people who claim that forcing themselves sexually on an unwilling partner is a good thing he would be able to demonstrate that they are "wrong" and he is "right".

He chooses human definitions that everyone knows change over time as his proof of absolutes that supposedly never change.

Besides Zakath slightly confusing things the argument is right where it was since post one. Knight has not demonstrated a single action or behavior that he can logically show is absolutely wrong. If all he needed to do was assert an action was absolutely wrong he could have done that in post one and the debate would have been over. Unfortunately I'm sure many in the audience demand more then mere assertions to "prove" a point.

I imagine most skeptics know that Knight can not "prove" absolute morality. Unless there was a rule that said, "In matters of morality you can accept "proof" that you would never accept in other areas" the affirmative of the topic is doomed to fail.

I think in the future a better topic would be to debate the perceived consequences of moral relativism or moral absolutism or both. I would be interested to understand how people that attack moral relativism think that a moral absolutist is on better grounds when all the absolutes must filter through human interpretation which is relative.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme
No contest... Knight won this debate. The only hope Zakath has to snatch this debate from the jaws of defeat is making one heck of a final post.

(Is anybody else wondering if zakath intentionally sabatoged this debate? :crackup

Since Knight still has not demonstrated the existence of a moral absolute, then on exactly what grounds do you insist he has won the debate? He has merely asserted that certain actions are absolutely wrong and has been content to leave it at that. He has not shown how or why murder, rape, or kidnapping fit the agreed-upon definition of absolute morality. He has not shown that they supercede human standards. He has merely claimed that they do, but not demonstrated the legitimacy of that claim. In short, Knight has failed to make a case. He can't win that way. You are judging him the winner merely because your opinion agrees with his, not on debatory grounds.

 

[Eireann]

By the way, still nobody has answered my question about why I haven't been allowed to vote on this debate. I've tried three times to register a vote on the poll, and have been refused each time. I'm starting to think seriously that the fix really is in, and I'm not saying that just to be funny. If that isn't the case, then please explain why my vote has been denied each time I've tried to register it.

 

[novice]

Valmoon you said "The fact that definitions can change shows how empty this argument is. This is a word game if I ever saw it." The definition of murder has not changed in the sense that it always means some type of wrongful or unlawful taking of human life and is almost always associated with "malice" or "evil intent".

Therefore if there is such a thing as "murder", by definition it is always wrong!

In essence, the moral relativist has to prove (or demonstrate) there is no such thing as "murder" as defined.