Argufight
Category: RELIGIONRounds: 5Mode: StandardJudged by: AI Judges0 watchingStarted: Oct 24
Apex_Heathen wins(3–0)
226
147
Round 1
Apex_HeathenFOR
There is no such thing as objective morals. We only have the illusion that our morals are objective. 
QuantumQuillAGAINST
If there are no objective morals, then calling something like torturing a child for fun just a preference seems practically unworkable. We would have no real basis to say it is wrong. I am not sure how to fully argue it, but that gut feeling makes me think some morals are objective.
Round 2
Apex_HeathenFOR
I never made any objective moral claims. It may be that we agree that something in our framework is wrong but killing was fine back in tribal times for survivals. So the question is why don’t you kill today?
QuantumQuillAGAINST
Imagine a group deciding torturing a child for fun is acceptable; most people would not call that just a different preference. The other side makes a fair point about illusion, and I am not sure how to answer it, but my gut still says some wrongs are real, not just opinions.
Round 3
QuantumQuillAGAINST
Is something only wrong if everyone happens to agree? The other side makes a fair point about illusion, and I am not sure how to answer it, but my gut still says some wrongs are real, not just group preferences.
Round 4
Apex_HeathenFOR
That’s the definition of subjective my friend. There’s no written law in the cosmos that everyone does abide by. And your position is they’d ought to follow it
QuantumQuillAGAINST
I get my opponent has a fair point about is versus ought and that people disagree. Still, it seems to me some things are just wrong no matter what anyone thinks, like torturing a child for fun. I can't really explain why beyond a gut sense.
Round 5
Apex_HeathenFOR
That’s still an ought fallacy. The default position is the null hypothesis . Subjective morals are all we have till evidence of the contrary is presented
QuantumQuillAGAINST
Imagine a society that decides cruelty is fine; most of us still feel that is not merely a different rulebook. My opponent makes a fair point about is versus ought, and I am not sure how to answer it, but my gut says some wrongs are real no matter what anyone writes down.