LOL - by the way.... how is that lump on your head?Originally posted by Zakath
Tell him about the folding chairs!
LOL - by the way.... how is that lump on your head?Originally posted by Zakath
Tell him about the folding chairs!
Thanks! It was actually a lot more work than I expected, it is also nerve racking, there is an element of excitement waiting for the next round!Originally posted by Jaltus
I agree with Pa and Eir. It seems as if both accepted, at least at one point in time, the burden of proof. What happened is neither produced. Too bad there is not a "they both lose" part to the voting.
I think Knight's closing was stronger than Zak's, and on that basis (since I had them tied going into the last round) I will vote for Knight.
Good going Knight! I honestly did not think you would be able to "out-debate" Zak. Good for you for proving me wrong!
This definition left him open to Zakath’s attacks on the source of those absolutes. I don’t mean to say that I disagree with Knight’s definition, just that it allowed Zakath to muddy the water’s a bit with his demands for proof that such a source exists. Had Knight used a definition such as the following:absolute morality a standard of right and wrong that supercedes – or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong.
…he could have avoided Zakath’s repeated demands on this point. From this definition, Knight easily wins the debate. In fact, this is really the definition by which Knight destroyed Zakath, even though he never stated it as I did above.Absolute morality – a standard of right and wrong that is completely unequivocal and not capable of being viewed as partial or relative.
By focusing on the definitions of these terms, Knight demonstrates, unequivocally, that absolute morality exists. All it took, as Knight challenged early in the battle, was “one example of a behavior or action that is absolutely wrong.” He then questioned Zakath through a scenario that fulfilled the definitions of the three actions in question: kidnapping, rape, and murder. By definition alone, these terms demonstrate absolute morality. Through Knight’s scenario, the issue becomes crystal clear. The actions of the man in Knight’s scenario could only be viewed as “relatively” wrong by those who deny the definitions of the words themselves. Zakath never denied the definitions of the words. He only attempted to demonstrate that these actions are not always wrong. There is a big difference between the two.Knight said, “In a discussion on the absolute morality of murder or rape, what is really at issue is viewing a specific example of an action that is clearly murder or rape, even by the most liberal definition of the terms and then determining if that specific action is absolutely wrong or if its only wrong relative to the given individual, society or government.”
That is a good point. I agree that was a mistake on my part and left Zakath too much room for obfuscation.As far as I see it, the only mistake Knight made was in his opening definition of absolute morality.
[Marty Feldman imitation]Originally posted by Knight
LOL - by the way.... how is that lump on your head?
Knight accepted the burden of proof early on. That relieved me of having to prove anything. Your point of proof is valid only if you are starting from an affirmative viewpoint (as you admittedly are). If one starts the argument from a neutral viewpoint, then the burden of proof is on the affirmative side since it is virtually impossible to conclusively prove a negative.Originally posted by Becky
...The only way that Zakath could have proved that absolute morality does not exist, would be to prove that kidnapping, rape, and murder are capable of being viewed as relative in every case. He was unable to do so and therefore, loses the debate.
Since YHWH, according to Judeo-Christian theology, cannot do wrong, when he orders something done (even genocide, kidnapping, or rape), the biblical response is "to obey is better than sacrifice" and morality gets a pass, making it relativistic.
I don't know if you intentionally used that word or merely misprinted, but if we're assuming a definition of absolute that bars relativism, then the relativist need only show one instance of each that is capable of being viewed as relative to abolish the notion of absolutes. Therefore, your statement should read: "The only way that Zakath could have proved that absolute morality does not exist, would be to prove that kidnapping, rape, and murder are capable of being viewed as relative in any case. If absolutism bars relativism, then even one demonstrable case of relativity will effectively bar absolutism. If someone can show even one instance where murder is not wrong, then "murder is wrong" is not absolute. It may be so nearly unanimously agreed-upon as to appear absolute, but it is not absolute, because the one case demolishes the absolute.Originally posted by Becky
The only way that Zakath could have proved that absolute morality does not exist, would be to prove that kidnapping, rape, and murder are capable of being viewed as relative in every case. He was unable to do so and therefore, loses the debate.
I would be more than willing to debate Becky on this topic. If she's willing. We should probably wait until another debate has come and gone, though. No need to have two debates on absolute morality in a row.Originally posted by Hank
From what I have read here, it appears that both Eireann and Becky may have some debate training. I would like to see the two of them debate this same topic.
Time to open the old dictionary, Paul. I think you might be confusing the words libel (dealing with printed material) and slander (dealing with oral statements). ;Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
Wow, it's not enough just to not believe in a deity-- one must also slander Deity as well, huh Zak?
Thank you Valmoon. It was a challenging venue. I'll be interested in reading your comments.Originally posted by Valmoon
Nice job Zak and Knight. I enjoyed your debate. Will post my thoughts on it later if time permits.