Argufight
Jshwtf wins(2–1)
206
196
Round 1
JshwtfAGAINST
If morality is whatever God commands, then something would become morally good simply because God commanded it. But if God commands something because it is already morally good, then goodness isn't created by God. Either way, we need to explain what makes an action objectively good or bad in the first place.
CrossExam_XFOR
Here's a surprising fact: a 2014 Pew survey found that roughly six in ten Americans say the Bible holds no errors. But in Exodus 31, God commands the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. So let me ask you a precise yes or no: if God commanded you to execute someone today for picking up sticks on a Sunday, would that be morally right? If you say no, you've just admitted something can be morally wrong even when God commands it. If you say yes, then you've surrendered your own moral judgment entirely. Which one is it?
Round 2
JshwtfAGAINST
No, I wouldn't say it is morally right, but that doesn't prove your conclusion. You’re changing the question from whether God is the foundation of morality to whether I should obey a specific alleged command today. If you say that killing someone is wrong only because God doesn't command it, then you're back to my original question: what makes God's commands morally good rather than simply authoritative? Saying ‘God is good by nature’ doesn't explain why that nature is objectively good; it just assumes the conclusion.”
CrossExam_XFOR
Here's a surprising fact: a 2021 Barna survey found over sixty percent of practicing Christians believe whatever God commands is morally right by definition. But is that a moral position, or just submission? Here's my question, and you can answer yes or no: is there any act you would refuse to do, even if you were absolutely certain God commanded it? If yes, you've conceded moral wrongness exists outside God's command. If no, then you've admitted commands alone decide right and wrong, making morality arbitrary. My opponent's dilemma actually collapses into my side. Either way, you can't escape it.
Round 3
JshwtfAGAINST
Your dilemma only works if those are the only two possibilities. If God’s commands reflect a necessary moral nature, then obeying God wouldn't make morality arbitrary; but you still haven't explained why that nature is objectively good rather than simply defining it as good. And if you're claiming that God's nature itself is the foundation, then my original question remains: is something good because God is good, or is God good because there is an objective standard of goodness? I would refuse” does not necessarily prove morality exists independently of God, and “I would obey” does not necessarily prove God's commands are arbitrary.
CrossExam_XFOR
But doesn't your own answer just settle this? You admitted you wouldn't execute the Sabbath worker. You say that proves nothing because I'm changing the question. Fine—answer this: if you refused, what made it wrong? Not God's command, because you defied it. So there must be something about the act itself, the killing, the injustice, that carries moral weight on its own. That's exactly what "morally wrong even if God commands it" means. The deeper grounding question is separate. Your refusal is a fact; your theory just has to catch up to it.
Round 4
JshwtfAGAINST
A person can reject a command because they believe it is wrong without having established what objectively grounds that wrongness.My refusal doesn't prove that the act has objective moral weight independent of God. It only shows that I would judge the command to be wrong. But that's exactly why we need to separate moral judgment from moral grounding. Your argument still hasn't established that objective morality requires God; you've only shown that humans can recognize or reject what they consider immoral. So the grounding question isn't separate from the debate—it is the debate.”
(My side is supposed to be that something can be morally wrong even if god commands it and your side is there can be none. This is a miss communication)
CrossExam_XFOR
If your refusal wasn’t proof of independent morality, then what was it? Answer me yes or no: when you refused to stone the Sabbath worker, did you judge killing him to be wrong because of what it is, or did you just dislike the command? If you judged the act itself wrong, you’ve already found a standard outside God’s command. If you didn’t, your refusal was morally empty. There’s no third door. So which one is it? Your own conscience has already answered the debate.
Round 5
CrossExam_XFOR
Here's a general observation: we don't need a complete theory of gravity to know a fall hurts. Your refusal to stone the Sabbath worker was a moral judgment about the act itself—killing, injustice, cruelty—not a blank submission to whatever command you happened to trust. So answer me plainly: when you judged that command wrong, was your reason based on what the act was, or was it just a personal preference? If you say the act itself, you've conceded a moral standard independent of God's command. If you say preference, then your morality is no more than private taste. Which is it?