BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Goose]

Originally posted by anselm13
goose:

My authority to do what? Evaluate a debate? Make moral judgements?

In other words: If you're a moral relativist, why should your opinion matter to me? I might think you're wrong, and I have just the same amount of authority as you, according to moral relativism.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Jaltus
I thought Goose was talking about Knight, LOL.

The redefining is exactly why.

Knight has the correct definition. BUT, Knight stated it in a way that was self-refuting for a moral relativist. It's got to be pretty frustrating for Zakath.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Jaltus
I think Zak is going to win, but that is because the more polished writer generally wins these debates.

Moral Relativists can NEVER win debates by definition. LOL In a Relativists eyes, both sides are equal in moral authority. The only thing a relativist can come to in a debate, and not be hypocritical, is a tie.

 

[Evangelion]

Wrong. There is a difference between a relative morality and an objective truth.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Originally posted by novice
Jaltus who cares about who is the more "polished writer"? That certainly would be a boring way to judge these debates. Heck... you could judge the debates before they start if that's the way your judging! I will be judging to see who makes the most logical argument.

The issue is that if you write poorly, it is very hard to understand your argument. I agree with Jaltus that it is typical to see the better writer win an argumen. Poor writing is often a sign of poor reasoning skills, after all, if you can't string a few words together in a cogent way, why shuold anyone expect you to string ideas together with any more efficacy.

Pilgrim

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Ev, good point, there is indeed a difference between morality and being.

Pilgrim

 

[Evangelion]

Thanks Pilgrim. :up:

I agre with this, BTW:

The issue is that if you write poorly, it is very hard to understand your argument. I agree with Jaltus that it is typical to see the better writer win an argumen. Poor writing is often a sign of poor reasoning skills, after all, if you can't string a few words together in a cogent way, why shuold anyone expect you to string ideas together with any more efficacy.

There's also the point that a fluent writer is often a clear and cogent thinker. In this case, the quality of the writing results from the quality of the thinking behind it.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's OK I wasn't expecting much support from the "left wing posse" any way.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Wrong. There is a difference between a relative morality and an objective truth.

How am I wrong?

 

[Sasquatch]

Sorry, Goose...

Moral Relativists can NEVER win debates by definition. LOL In a Relativists eyes, both sides are equal in moral authority. The only thing a relativist can come to in a debate, and not be hypocritical, is a tie.

Maybe in a debate regarding a moral act (i.e. whether or not to call your mom on mother's day, whether or not to give back a bag of money found in a park, etc) - but you didn't make that clear.

How about a debate between a moral relatavist/scientist and a Christan about the nature of gravity?

Or the moral relativist/mathematician and the moron/Christian about whether 2+2 really equals 4?

There are moral issues and there are objective truths, just as Evangelion said... the moral relativist can often win the debate with absolute certainty in the realm of objective truth and not be tainted by his/her moral relativism.

Peace, grace and mercy...

 

[Sasquatch]

Oh... and Zakath is arguing for the objective truth that there is no morality. Notice that he is not arguing a moral issue (i.e. it is wrong to believe in a universal morality )... this is why I don't believe he has "painted himself into a corner." Burden of proof has shifted to Knight.

This is why I encouraged Knight to move into arguing objectively also... the only way to counter Zakath's move effectively - besides hitting him on the head with a folding chair!

Peace...

 

[NoLies]

As this debate goes on you will see that Zak will make points, which will contradict posts he has made earlier, it is inevitable. He will be talking in circles.

The reason, as I see it, Zak seems to have lost his debate edge, as most have noticed, is because after reading his posts, no matter how well written, for the last year you can see that he has no point of reference, so he can take any position at any time to suit his needs. After reading this nonsense for a while it looses it’s edge. For a few post he seems rational but after a year he seems less than that.

Have at me there Zaky!

 

[Freak]

Zakath has indeed lost any edge...

Zakath has indeed lost any edge...

As I and many others have noticed, Zakath is a different person. His mind is not as sharp as once before.

Jaltus states: I think Zak is going to win, but that is because the more polished writer generally wins these debates.

Jaltus, what about the issue of truth? Don't you think truth will win out?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

If the truth is not presented in a recognizable way it is the same as if it never showed up. Besides, we are not talking about truth, we are talking about who presents the best and most cogent argument.

Pilgrim

 

[Evangelion]

Pilgrim - Exactly. :up:



Goose - I see that Sasquatch has jumped in ahead of me, and answered your question.

Thanks, Sasquatch.

 

[Jaltus]

Freak,

After reading Zak's second post, I think that Knight has a very good chance of beating Zak. Zak really does seem to have slipped from his past posting acumen.

Of course I want the truth to come out, but how often does the truth really decide the debate? Mind you, debates are generally graded on perception of the debater, not on the actual issue itself. If this was only about the issue itself, there would be no point in arguing it, as I am sure we all have our minds made up.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I agree with Jaltus, that second posting has me leaning toward knight right now. I'll hold my vote for later though.

Pilgrim

 

[Brother Vinny]

Oooh! I'm late! Are there any ringside seats left? Is anyone selling popcorn?

 

[novice]

Hey Paul!

 

[Eireann]

Re: goodknight

Re: goodknight

Originally posted by anselm13
Apparently Knight rejects Zakath's definition of absolute morality while failing to clearly establish his own definition (absolute morality = any morality greater than man's morality?).

Agreed. And Knight has made a fundamental error by using the comparitive in his definition, when an absolute, by its very nature, would require the superlative.

Now, to address some things Knight said:

If one argues against absolute morality they have no standing to argue for ANY type of morality, they might think they have standing, but ultimately they do not and I will show that.

That is the stereotype that absolutists love to paint of relativists. Unfortunately, it is groundless.

(the consistently logical stance for the moral relativist would be to have NO standard of morals whatsoever

Where did you get that idea? That's about as inaccurate a statement as I've seen yet. Our stance is that there are standards of morals, but those standards are relative to the society. Knight is attempting to set up relativists as having standards set by the individual. If that were the case, then he would be right, there would be no point of reference by which a standard could be measured. But morals are not set by the individual; they are set by societies.

Moral relativists often accuse Christians and other religious groups of doing things that are wrong and even absolutely wrong! How does that fit in with their moral relativists stance?

There is a difference between "wrong" and "absolutely wrong." Perhaps Knight would care to put up an example of where a relativist accused a Christian of doing something absolutely wrong? Or is this simply an empty accusation?

Moral relativists know full well the logical consequences of moral absolutes which is the only reason that they are silly enough to argue against them.

And those would be ... ?