avatar
16 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      Another super close debate! We had a tie on the audience votes at the 24 hours mark upon the completion of the debate so winner is determined by the judge. Congrats @theantifeminist for advancing to the next round! Hard luck @hegemon, hope to see you at the next tournament - registration is now open

      • 2 years ago

        @hegemon Hi, good news! We had a couple of users in round 2 who had to drop out, and since you're one of the few participants who had a Draw in community votes, you can grab the empty spot for round 2! Please let us know if you'd like that so we can send your schedule for round 2.

    • 2 years ago

      @theantifeminist Thanks for a fun debate! Apologies for any confusion.

    • 2 years ago

      Pro mentions ISLAM....which is one religion that can be used to destroy the premise.

      Natural laws have several major basic premises....
      1. I have a right to my own life
      2. I have a right to my property and 'stuff'
      3. The "Golden Rule" compels me to treat others as I would treat them - therefore I do not have the right to take someone else's life or stuff.
      4. Government exists to protect people's natural rights (1 & 2) and ensure the Golden Rule is adhered to.

      ISLAM totally rejects #3...they believe that they have the right to kill non-believers and to take their stuff, They have a right to rape non-believers, they have a right to beat them, etc. Islam should be treated outside of a religion with a 'natural law' morality ...because it lacks it.
      CON is quick to grab the failures of Islam as a way of defeating the PRO initial argument.

      • 2 years ago

        @mvineyard This suffers from equivocation of morals with morality. Your argument about natural law assumes:
        1. That natural law is moral;
        2. That Islam's alleged rejection of that makes it immoral; and
        3. That Islam's alleged immorality, if proven, sufficiently rebuts the resolution's premise that religious people have more morals.

        See http://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality?s=t vs. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/morals (scroll past its use as an adjective to its use as a noun).

      • 2 years ago

        @hegemon I think you are in the weeds with definitions ....I am focused on REAL WORLD. I would expect moral people to be GOOD people......ISLAM is IMMORAL AND EVIL. Islam is a 'religion' ....but as I argue - since that religion is one that REJECTS 'natural law'....it is not a religion worthy of consideration.... (Consider it an evil cult.)

        NOW - we can argue about 'natural law'. BUT - If you reject natural law....then there is nothing that I would care to 'debate' you on. I listed 4 basic premises of natural law...do you agree or not, and if so which ones do you reject? And - why?

    • 2 years ago

      Oh how I have missed @theantifeminist

      • 2 years ago

        @hegemon woah its you

      • 2 years ago

        To answer the first question from Con of what a religious person cannot do that an a religious person can do is to comit the ultimate immoral act of cursing God. Con appeals, like all others, to a universal moral standard or what is right and wrong. So if we allow that what we get is all people having the same moral code (I concede only for the purpose of the debate and argued this myself last night). But if we say all people have the same universal code Con unsubstantiatedly appeals to then what single morality do religious people have that atheists do not? That involves the very worship of God itself. The religious person says to curse God is immoral and thus a least a single act that tips he scale in numbers. He lacks Foundation for his claim to a universal morality but that’s irrelevant for the purpose of the debate.