Resolved: It is probable that objective moral facts exist

This debate tackles a foundational question in meta-ethics: what is the nature of morality itself? Proponents of moral realism argue that moral statements (e.g., "torturing an innocent being for fun is wrong") refer to objective facts about the world. In this view, moral truths are mind-independent; they are discovered, not created, and hold true regardless of what individuals or cultures believe. Conversely, moral antirealists argue that no such objective moral facts exist. They contend that moral statements are better understood as expressions of emotion (emotivism), statements about cultural norms (relativism), or subjective judgments. The central question is not about what actions are right or wrong, but whether the concepts of "right" and "wrong" correspond to anything real and objective in the world.

Burden of Proof: Shared

Pro has the burden to argue for the greater likelihood and philosophical plausibility of moral realism. Con has the burden to argue for the greater likelihood and philosophical plausibility of moral antirealism.

Definitions

Objective moral facts / moral realism: The meta-ethical view which holds that there are objective moral facts and values that are independent of our beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes towards them. In this view, moral claims can be true or false in the same way scientific claims can be.

Moral Anti-Realism: The meta-ethical view that denies the existence of objective, mind-independent moral facts. It encompasses various positions that claim moral statements are expressions of emotion, cultural conventions, or subjective judgments rather than statements of objective truth.

Round 1

1 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #1

I would like to thank Double_R for accepting this debate. In this debate, I will be defending the proposition that objective moral facts and duties exist. By objective, I mean that these facts are mind-independent.

Moral realism is the position that moral statements like “It is wrong to torture babies for fun” and “Rape is wrong” are statements about reality and can be true or false like “2+2=4”. Conversely, moral anti-realism states that these statements collapse back into a statement like “I prefer red ot blue.” Under moral anti-realism these statements are neither true nor false.

In assessing whether or not moral realism or anti-realism is true I want to focus on two major points: 1) Epistemic virtue and normativity; and 2) Moral progress. As such, I contend that if my opponent denies that there are mind-independent moral facts, then he risks running into absurdities. The fact that we can make claims about what it means to reason and what it means to progress as a society only makes sense if moral realism is true.

Epistemic virtue and normativity

For rational discourse to be even remotely possible it requires a minimum set of standards before the debate can even continue. For example, we should all agree on these principles: 1) We ought not believe falsehoods; 2) we ought not misrepresent the opposing side; 3) we ought to argue in good faith; and 4) we ought not use logical fallacies. Consider the following dialogue:

David: What do you think of my argument for evolution?

Double_R: I think it's a sound argument -- your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.

David: So does that mean you'll reject young-earth creationism now and accept the scientific facts of evolution?

Double_R: No

David: Why not?

Double_R: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth. I reject reality and replace it with my own

This dialogue is rightfully absurd. If there are mind-independent epistemic facts and duties then why are there no moral facts and duties? Accepting one while rejecting the other, or even worse rejecting both, makes dialogue and truth finding impossible. As Michael Jones puts it:

P1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.

P2: Epistemic facts do exist

C1: Moral facts do exist.

P3: If moral facts do exist, then moral realism is true.

C2: Moral realism is true

Moral Progress

The final piece of evidence I would like to bring up is the evidence from moral progress. If there are no mind-independent moral facts and duties, then moral progress becomes meaningless.

Almost everyone can agree that slavery is wrong and that the abolition of slavery was an improvement on society. But why should we believe this is the case? If morality were merely subjective or based on culture, then who is to say that we actually made progress as a society? Indeed, an anti-realist could easily argue that the abolition of slavery was immoral because it stole people’s property! If morality were not mind-independent, then who is to judge and who is to say whose right?

Also consider the holocaust, one of the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. If morality were not mind-independent then, how could one objectively condemn the nazis for their actions? The nazis argued that the Jews presented a danger to Germany and they needed more “living space.” Under anti-realism how can we determine which position is correct? This is one of the questions I want to force my opponent to answer.

1. Michael Jones, "Moral Realism Defended." https://youtu.be/zjkgD4w9w1k?si=fgWg7NfYThtSr3PL&t=42

Double_R

Con #2

Thanks Pro for instigating this debate and for his well laid out Round 1 argument.

In this debate I’ll be defending the moral anti-realism position that there is no such thing as an objective moral fact. I’ll start with a brief layout of what morality actually is and why it is fundamentally at odds with the concept of objective morality, and then finish by addressing Pro’s R1 arguments.

What is morality?

Simply put, morality is a system by which we judge actions as right or wrong. All coherent moral systems, even conflicting ones, are made up of the same ingredients;

A) a moral standard

B) logic

C) a moral judgement resulting from A and B

As illustrated above, the process of coming to a moral judgement or establishing a moral fact is structurally no different than any other logical process. We begin with premises (moral standards) and from there, apply logic to reach our conclusion (moral judgement).

But as anyone versed in epistemology understands, a valid conclusion does not equal a necessary truth. In order for a conclusion to be considered necessarily true, the premise must be accepted as true.

So the question is, how do we assess whether the premises are true? The answer to this question is what determines whether a claim is objective or subjective.

A premise that is objective in nature is one that can be empirically tested. For example, we know, objectively, that 2+2=4 because we can test this in many different ways. We can for example place two cups on one end of the table and two cups on the other, then place them together and see how many cups we have. Or another claim we can objectively test would be “I can fly”. To test that simply head to the top of your nearest skyscraper and jump off. See what happens (actually, please don’t).

Subjective claims on the other hand, have no identifiable basis in empirical reality. There is no mechanism to test them apart from conferring with other minds. “Ice cream is good” being a great example.

So let’s apply this to morality. Pro says torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong. How do we test this? What do we compare our empirical observations to? Our discomfort with watching it happen? Our empathy for the infant? What grounds these asserted moral conclusions apart from values determined within our own mind?

And herein lies the problem; no matter what example we use, Pro cannot escape the inherent circularity of his position. In order to conclude that something is immoral, he has to assert it within his own moral standard. But that standard is chosen, making it subjective by definition.

This is categorically different than any example where objectivity is involved because objectivity is grounded in empirical reality, whereas moral judgements are not testable within empirical reality, not even theoretically.

What all of this comes down to is the is/ought problem popularized by David Hume. As Hume pointed out, there is no way to get from what is to what ought to be without injecting a value statement into the equation. But value statements are inherently subjective, so any pronouncement grounded in them will also be subjective. This is not escapable.

Epistemic virtue and normativity

Pro argues that the existence of epistemic facts necessitate the existence of moral facts. This does not logically follow.

His 4 “oughts” feel powerful because these are things most people agree upon. But agreement is a statement of our values, not a signifier of some metaphysical truth. They are derived from a shared desire to understand what is true, and are little more than tools we use to get there.

Pro claims it would be absurd for someone to agree with his hypothetical conversation points only to reject them at the end, but it actually isn’t. Absurdity arises from internal contradiction, but in this case my hypothetical self was not contradictory, he was consistent with his own value of preferring comfort over honesty. You might think that’s a ridiculous stance for one to take and I too would agree, but it is up to each individual to decide what they prioritize, because it is entirely subjective.

Moral Progress

Pro’s case here is easily summed up within his first paragraph when he asserts that if there are no mind-independent moral facts and duties, then moral progress becomes meaningless. But this assertion is nothing more than an opinion. What is meaningful to each of us is ultimately up to each of us, it is as subjective as any claim could be.

This reveals the core problem with moral realism; it grounds itself not on the empirical testability of its claims, but on the personally held value that something must be objectively determinable in order to matter. That is not a case for why moral realism is true, it’s a case for why we would feel comforted to learn that it is.

As a moral anti-realist, I don’t need to appeal to some cosmic arbiter telling me someone is wrong in order to stand up for what I believe is right. If I walk into a room where a child is being raped, I will do everything in my power to stop the perpetrator. Not because I read it was wrong in a book, not because I was taught it to be wrong by my elders, but because my emotional experience plus logic makes my stance on it very clear to me. And it is because we as a society can come together and overwhelmingly agree on issues as basic as these that we can function together.

So to address some of Pro’s questions directly, like how do we determine slavery or the Holocaust to be objectively wrong… we don’t. We determine them to be morally wrong, which is categorically different. By asking how we evaluate these claims objectively Pro is presuming the position he’s supposed to be justifying in this debate. My position is that they’re not objectively determinable, and I would also argue that they don’t need to be for us to hold them as legitimate positions. But let’s not confuse things, the latter of that statement, while useful to recognize, is not my burden in this debate. Only the former, which I have shown.

Final thought

Throughout this round I have explained why moral judgments require subjective value premises. If Pro wishes to defend moral realism, he must explain what mind-independent moral facts actually are, where they exist, and how we could possibly detect or verify them.

Round 2

2 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #3

Thank you, Double_R, for accepting this debate and for your gracious opening statements. With that, let's dive right in.

What is morality?

My opponent completely misunderstands the differences between objective, subjective, empiricism, and the implications of a valid deductive argument. Let's start with what a valid deductive argument is. An argument is valid if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premesies to be true and the conclusion is false. If the premises in a syllogism are all true, the structure is valid, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Let's take a look at one of the most famous syllogisms of all time:

1. All men are mortal

2. Socrates is a man

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This syllogism is logically valid. If both premises are true then the conclusion follows. Premise 2 is obvious. as no one can deny Socrates is anything other than a man. Premise 1 (more on this later) is also obviously true and thus the conclusion that Socrates is moral is inescapable unless one can prove either premise 1 or premise 2 is false.

An even bigger issue with my opponent's case is his criteria for subjective and objective. In philosophy, something is objective if it is mind-independent and something is subjective if it is mind-dependent. Although empricisim is a powerful tool, not everything that is objective is empircal. For example, the 2+2=4 example my opponent gave is actually not empiracle. The cups example he gave are cute ways to teach kindergarteners math, but that's not how real math is done. Cups don't tell us why 2+2=4 or why the number 2 even exists to begin with. Real math is done via logical and formal proofs - none of which can be seen directly but must be inferred through logic.

And there's the problem with logic: Logic itself is not empircal. We can't find the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and identity in nature. These are axioms. There's no proof for these fundamental logical laws. But without them logical discourse is impossible. Similarly, moral facts are also axiomatic. Just like we can't reason without the axioms of the laws of logic we cannot have a functioning societty without morality. The point is that not all objective truths require empirical grounding.

Epistemic virtue and normativity

In the previous round I presented the following syllogism:

P1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.

P2: Epistemic facts do exist

C1: Moral facts do exist.

P3: If moral facts do exist, then moral realism is true.

C2: Moral realism is true

My opponent stated that the existence of epistemic facts necessitate the existence of moral facts does not logically follow. The problem with my opponent's line of reasoning is that rejecting epistimic facts and duties leads to the collapse of truth-finding and threatens the entire scientific enterpreise. If everyone's "truth" was just as valid then there is no such thing as "truth", which is absurd. Thus if normativity exists objectively in ratioanl discourse then there is no reason to beleive it doesn't exist in how you behave.

Moral Progress

My opponent is inconsistent.

As a moral anti-realist, I don’t need to appeal to some cosmic arbiter telling me someone is wrong in order to stand up for what I believe is right. If I walk into a room where a child is being raped, I will do everything in my power to stop the perpetrator. Not because I read it was wrong in a book, not because I was taught it to be wrong by my elders, but because my emotional experience plus logic makes my stance on it very clear to me. And it is because we as a society can come together and overwhelmingly agree on issues as basic as these that we can function together.

It's important to note that there are many moral realist frameworsk taht don't appeal to authority or to a God. The existence of Gods are outside the scope of this debate. That said, my opponent wants to live in a world where moral realism is true without accepting the consequences of moral realsim. Let's take the statement "Raping children is fine. I like raping children." Under moral anti-realism this claim is just as valid as saying "Raping children is not OK." Under his own framework my opponent has zero right to go in and stop the rapist. If the rapist has their own truth and their own worldview that differs from my opponent's then why does pro feel that he has the ought and duty to stop this act? My opponent cannot have his cake and eat it to. In order to do so he has to borrow from the moral realists world view. This leads to the final death knell for anti-realism: It's easy to profess anti-realism. It is not easy to live with the logical consequences of anti-realism.

Double_R

Con #4

What is morality?

Pro’s definition of validity does not add anything to this debate, it does not refute nor contradict anything I’ve argued, so there’s nothing to respond to there.

Regarding empirical testability, my opponent misunderstands what I’ve presented. I didn’t argue that objectivity is only determinable by performing empirical experiments, I argued that there must be some possible manifestation within reality for a claim to be reasonably categorized as objective. Or more simply put, if it has no possible manifestation outside of the mind then it cannot be independent of the mind. That’s not a definition, it’s a test.

The cups example illustrates this. Pro argues that my cups exercise fails to explain why 2+2=4, but that is not my burden. My argument is simply that it does, and the cups example demonstrates this. It doesn’t matter what one’s opinion on the outcome is, it will total 4 regardless. The cups weren’t necessary to prove this, but it can be demonstrated using cups. That’s the difference.

The laws of logic are another illustration of this point. These laws themselves do not exist in any meaningful sense, but they apply to everything that actually does exist, that’s why we rely on them. Show me a rock that is not a rock. Pro cannot, because the law of identity will always hold. Show me someone who is both pregnant and not pregnant. Pro cannot, because the law of non-contradiction will always hold. Reality will always align with these laws in demonstrable ways without any opinion or value being necessary. The same cannot be demonstrated with regards to any pronouncement of moral truth.

In the previous round Pro claimed that moral facts are axiomatic, and to support this case he compares morality without moral facts to reason without logic. This comparison does not hold. While morality is not possible without a moral standard (aka premises), those premises will always be subjectively chosen by the moral agent, negating any possibility of its conclusions being mind independent.

Reason on the other hand is not possible without logic because logic is the very tool we use to reason, and because any attempt to justify a different tool would force us to use logic in order to justify said tool. It’s inescapable, that’s why the laws of logic are axiomatic. They aren’t chosen the way moral standards are, they are unavoidable. The only thing axiomatic about morality is that it must begin with a set of standards, not what those standards are.

While making this case Pro also argued that moral facts are necessary for a functioning society, but a functioning society is a value, not a given. There are plenty of people who do not wish to partake in any organized society and in fact we’re the only species on earth who is even capable of it. Moreover, a functioning society doesn’t require the existence of objective moral facts, only the acceptance of them as the foundational standard. As long as society at large agrees on them, function is inevitable.

Epistemic Virtue and Normativity

Pro’s response here is entirely based on a strawman so is of no value to this debate. I never rejected the existence of epistemic facts, what I rejected is the claim that the existence of epistemic facts necessitates the existence of moral facts. Pro asserted this but did no work to show it, until he does we have to reason to accept it.

Moral Progress

My opponent asserts that under moral anti-realism I would have “zero right” to stop a rapist, but Pro has yet to establish where such rights would come from in the first place or how we could determine what those rights are, so this claim does not help us address any of the questions at hand in this debate.

Pro’s claim that “raping children is fine” is just as valid under moral anti-realism as its negation, is deeply misguided. Anti-realism is not the absence of morality, it simply means that the foundational values we use to determine whether a claim such as ‘raping children is fine’ is true, ultimately resides within us rather than outside of us. That’s the dispute, not whether we hold a child rapist at the same level of someone choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate (which would be morally horrific, cause everyone knows chocolate is objectively better ; )

The child rape argument is an appeal to emotion. The logic presented can be accurately framed as; “I only value moral pronouncements as authoritative if they are objective, so since I value this moral pronouncement, it must be objective”. But we all know this isn’t how objectivity is determined.

Earlier I described morality as simply part of the logical structure where premises are asserted and from there, conclusions follow. Another illustration of how this works is the classic chess example. In chess, we wouldn’t even question that any move which corners your opponent into checkmate is a good move, some might even say objectively good. But that objectivity stems not from some mind independent existence, but from the asserted value of winning the game. It is only from this starting point that an objective evaluation of any move is determinable. Remove that value and the evaluation is purely subjective.

This is why the child rape analogy feels powerful, because it is difficult to imagine any other starting value from which it would be morally permissible. Any society that cares about its well being would certainly care about its youth. But the well being of a society again, isn’t a given. We care about it because it aids our survival, but not even valuing our survival is a given.

99.9% of all species throughout earth’s history are extinct, the ones that survived would of course exclude any species that didn’t value survival. So our overwhelming agreement here isn’t evidence of some truth beyond our minds, but rather as the byproduct of a reality in which survival wasn’t guaranteed to any of us, requiring us to fight for it, which we of course would not have done if we didn’t value it. Pro is using the result of that survival process as if it were evidence of objective truth, when it is better explained as the result of shared human values.

Summary

My opponent has still not shown that moral facts exist independently of the mind. I have made my position clear that an objective claim must either have some possible manifestation within reality, or be unavoidable (like logic), and moral claims meet neither condition because they always begin with value-based premises chosen by the moral agent. Meanwhile none of Pros arguments asserting morality to be mind independent hold.

The resolution is negated.

Round 3

3 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #5

FORFEITED

Double_R

Con #6

Well, looks like I scared Pro away with my awesome logic.

Extend all arguments.

Round 4

4 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #7

I am going to concede this debate. I am sorry to my opponent. I do not have the time or mental energy to put into this debate.

Double_R

Con #8

Sorry to hear that, but it was fun while it lasted.

Kohai Administrator

#50

--> @Imabench

Thanks for the vote

Alyssa

#49

--> @Double_R

I'm not limiting my conception of what debate should be, but I can see how you would believe that. I'm 'limiting' my conception of debate because I have zero issues with debate as it exists within the status quo. As I mentioned before, there are multiple other avenues of having intellectually honest discussions that revolve around truth seeking first that are more prominent than competitive debate. Let us have our corner of the internet.

Double_R

#48

--> @Kohai

You know debating is more than just a side thing you do when you when you find yourself debating debating.

Double_R

#47

--> @Savant

"If your goal is truth-seeking, then devil's advocate debates are probably a decent way to achieve that."

Eh. I don't disagree, it's certainly a test of how well each side understands the alternative's position, but to take a DA position in debate is to defend something I don't believe. If you care about truth then you care about intellectual honesty, so signing up to uphold a position via intellectual dishonesty, even if it is in essence just for the exercise, I just don't find appealing.

Double_R

#46

--> @Alyssa

I think the difference between us is clear; you're seeing this through the lens of competitions, tournaments, etc., whereas I'm seeing this as a medium between sides that disagree to come together and address their differences.

What I do find odd is the way you seem to limit your conception of debate to what it "is" and don't seem interested in speaking on what you think it should be. I've pointed out numerous times to both you and Savant that in a tournament style set up or where debaters are for example given sides to defend, that a shared BoP is probably preferable, it's the set up itself that I'm rejecting because there's no need for us to stick to that here. So in the end it just comes down to what you prefer. On that note I've made my views clear I think, and while I still don't see it your way I understand much better why you see it that way. So there's some progress.

Kohai Administrator

#45

--> @Alyssa, @Double_R, @Savant

Will post final arguments tomorrow. I will say I love debates that end up having side debates in the comments.

Savant Administrator

#44

--> @Double_R

"This is why I don't do devil's advocate debates"

If your goal is truth-seeking, then devil's advocate debates are probably a decent way to achieve that. If Bob beats Fred in a debate, we can infer that Bob's position is stronger or that Bob is a better debater or that voters are biased. If everybody switches sides all the time, and one side always wins, then we can infer either that position is stronger or the voters are biased. So we've controlled for 1/2 confounding variables.

Basically, your rhetorical skills will reflect on whatever side you represent, even if they have nothing to do with the validity of your side.

Alyssa

#43

--> @Double_R

Like, it's cool that you want debate to be entirely about truth seeking, but to extend that out onto all aspects of debate that exist within the status quo is really strange considering that competitive debate in the status quo is absolutely not what you're describing and realistically wouldn't/couldn't exist under your conception. The entire concept of competition requires people to be able to take both sides, so if people only accepted debates on the side they believed in, then tournaments couldn't be run because there wouldn't be enough competitors and topics would be near impossible to create because anything that is provably true one way or another would be out (because then no one would intentionally defend the 'incorrect' side).

I get wanting discussion to be about finding truth and learning. That's just not what competitive debate is on any level. The world is full of other places that cater to exactly what you're looking for. This small corner of existence is not it.

Double_R

#42

--> @Alyssa

"It is, first and foremost, a competition"

Yes, it is a competition. That's what happens when you make something... A competition.

The question is... *What* are we making a competition out of?

If we're making a competition out of who has the best rhetorical and communication skills... Then your conception of competitive debate holds because that's what your conception of debate emulates.

If we're making a competition out of getting it right... That's what my conception is more geared towards.

Both are competitions, which makes them both games to some extent, but I prefer mine because my game more closely aligns with what I care about. This is why I don't do devil's advocate debates or debate topics I don't have a strong position on. It's also why I have absolutely no problem accepting full BoP, in fact I often prefer it.

It's also why I reject your notion that having the BoP is a disadvantage. The biggest advantage one could possibly have is to be on the side of the resolution that's right. If I didn't think I was, I wouldn't accept the challenge. And if I'm wrong, the greatest thing you could do for me is to show me by beating me (not the judges votes always determine who's actually right, but proving your position to them is the game).

Alyssa

#41

--> @Double_R

> My endeavor is finding the truth first and foremost, mutual understanding second if the truth cannot be mutually reached. Good faith debate is how that happens

If this is what you're looking for, competitive debate is absolutely not the activity for you. The moment we have attached not only a winner and a loser to the result of the arguments made within a round, but also incentives to win (whether they be fake internet points on here or actual real world stakes like in highschool/college level tournaments), good faith goes out the window. It is, first and foremost, a competition. Honest and good faith discussion is something that, if it's lucky, takes a backseat.

It's fine to talk about how competitive debate "should" be, but to ignore what it is in pointless speculation of what it could be just brushes over the problems that exist that prevent it from being more.

Double_R

#40

--> @Alyssa

"Real world discussions do not have winners and losers. Competitive debate is something that is extremely game-ified and to look at it as a way to persuade and help others better understand the world is incredibly wholesome, but incredibly misguided."

The fact that competitive debate has been game-ified doesn't mean we need to game-ify it further.

It doesn't matter whether the competitors or even the audience are on a good faith truth seeking venture. What we're talking about is how the contest itself should be structured, which is determined by that which best resembles the endeavor we are on.

My endeavor is finding the truth first and foremost, mutual understanding second if the truth cannot be mutually reached. Good faith debate is how that happens, and in so doing we are best served by addressing one proposition at a time. This is how it works in real life, so those is how I believe the contest we call debate should be structured.

Within that structure there will be games for sure, and that's ok. When game tactics violate or threaten the spirit of the venture, we make adjustments. These come in the form of rules like "unaddressed arguments are concessions", "no new arguments in the last round", etc. It'll never be perfect, but it doesn't need to be.

Alyssa

#39

--> @Double_R

> I think this is the root of our disagreement. You see debating as a game, I see it as a means to adjudicate disagreements.

I would agree. It's probably better to keep our conversation here for now.

I think if you're walking into a debate round looking for a legitimate truth seeking conversation, then you're hilariously naive. Real world discussions do not have winners and losers. Competitive debate is something that is extremely game-ified and to look at it as a way to persuade and help others better understand the world is incredibly wholesome, but incredibly misguided. It's the reason why there are some topics I refuse to do a debate over because there are topics that I'm infinitely more interested in truth-seeking and helping others better understand things than I am in practicing my debating skills.

Double_R

#38

--> @Alyssa

"- Always giving Pro the BoP gives Con an unfair advantage"

No, it doesn't. Con still has to successfully refute Pro's case, he doesn't get to just say "nu uh" and claim victory.

As I said to Savant, under my construct, if Pro provides 4 arguments that each favor the resolution, then in the absence of argument affirming the opposite, Con must go 4/4 to win. Pro meanwhile, only has to go 1/4.

Perhaps one of the issues here is that you think Pro must convince the judges of the resolution. They don't. The question at the end of the debate isn't whether the judges agree, is whether the arguments withstood the scrutiny that was offered in the debate.

"- BoP =/= side selection"

BoP = clarification. If the resolution is X, then Pro is X and Con is not X.

"What is a weighing argument?"

Weighing arguments is about determining which argument is stronger, which is incredibly subjective, which is why I think it's a terrible metric to have to judge a debate by.

The central rule of judging a debate fairly is to limit your reasoning as much as possible to only what was offered in the debate. Weighing arguments against each other is inherently subjective and inevitably will require the judges to base their decisions on arguments not made in the debate.

Again, if Pro makes an argument that Con barely address, because Con didn't find the argument meaningful enough to warrant the time and attention it would have taken to adequately refute it, a judge could may very well hand Pro the debate right there. The issue isn't that Con didn't have a refutation, it's that there were 7 other arguments in the debate he found more worth focusing on.

You might say that's the point, knowing what to respond to, but that's nonsense. Everyone has their own opinions, you never know which point a judge will find meaningful and/or convincing. So this effectively turns the debate into a guessing game, dependant not on who presented a valid case but far more so on who decided to read the debate.

"- Always giving Pro the BoP skews debating from who is the better debater to who is the better res writer."

I think this is the root of our disagreement. You see debating as a game, I see it as a means to adjudicate disagreements. I don't care who is better skilled, I care who is right.

I would have responded to the rest but am out of time so I'll come back to the rest later. This is what happens in debate when we're trying to address 14 different issues at the same time, no matter how much space we have, it's still not enough. Don't think I left any of your points before on the table cause I didn't have anything to say, I just don't have all day to sit here typing them out.

Alyssa

#37

--> @Double_R

Before I go to respond to your last message, I'll point out a couple of points I raised previously that you didn't mention. If you'd like to address them please do so:

- Always giving Pro the BoP gives Con an unfair advantage.
- Always giving Pro the BoP skews debating from who is the better debater to who is the better res writer.
- BoP =/= side selection
- What is a weighing argument?

Onto the actual discussion:

> Belief options are not limited to 'I believe X is true' or 'I believe X is false'. Neutral is not only a legitimate position, in many cases it's the only defensible position.

Debate resolutions do not care about what you believe. Taking a neutral stance does not grant you offense towards affirming/negating the resolution. In accepting a debate and entering the debate round, you have accepted a stance to defend one side of a topic. If you do not defend that side, you will lose. Simple as.

> Trying to mandate that your opponent affirm the opposite position and cannot simply refute your case, is a tell of remarkable intellectual insecurity.

1. In what world is this relevant to offense and defense towards affirming/negating a resolution?
2. Moreover, in what world is this even true? If anything saying that you *shouldn't* have to actively affirm your side of the resolution is a sign of intellectual insecurity because you're suggesting that you *can't* defend it. Either that or just personal insecurity in that you don't think you're a good enough debater to defend it. Pick your poison.

Moreover, actively affirming your side of the res doesn't preclude you from disproving or engaging with your opponent's side of the debate. Both sides should 100% be engaging with each other, but both sides should also be giving their opponent something to engage with.

> Well first of all, refuting your opponent's arguments is not off topic

I can absolutely spend 100% of my time attacking my opponent's arguments in ways that don't touch on the substance of the argument in any way. There's a myriad of ways to do so, including pointing out logical fallacies, disproving warrants made within arguments, and questioning the links between certain arguments and their solvency. None of those arguments make any stance on the actual topic, but simply state "your argument sucks".

> But that aside, that's not insane, that's how logic works.

Then again with the judicial trial example. Trials =/= debate rounds. If you would like to draw comparisons, please make sure that they are actually relevant to the actual topic. For example, a relevant comparison would be "In a debate round with the resolution "Targeted Killing is Morally Permissible", I present evidence that targeted killing is morally permissible until util framings. You challenge me and show that my evidence is invalid. The outcome is you have only made arguments that say I am wrong, and none that say you are right. Therefore, the only side that has any risk of offense at the end of the round under util is me. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed."

Double_R

#36

--> @Alyssa

"if something is a true dichotomy and I say one side is wrong, then I am, in fact, saying that the other side is right. That is how things that are mutually exclusive work"

Correct. But you're referring to the truth value of the proposition. Belief options are not limited to 'I believe X is true' or 'I believe X is false'. Neutral is not only a legitimate position, in many cases it's the only defensible position.

Trying to mandate that your opponent affirm the opposite position and cannot simply refute your case, is a tell of remarkable intellectual insecurity. If you believe something then stand up and defend it. If it cannot withstand rational scrutiny then perhaps you should rethink your position.

"I can spend 100% of the time not addressing the topic and simply just deconstructing my opponent's arguments, and win the debate without having to actually address the topic."

Well first of all, refuting your opponent's arguments is not off topic, that's literally what the debate is. But that aside, that's not insane, that's how logic works.

I instigate a debate; "The defendant is guilty". I present the evidence. You challenge me and successfully show that all of my evidence is false or invalid. What is the outcome?

At the end of this debate, you are still in your position that the evidence does not justify an assertion of guilt. I meanwhile, am forced to move from my position to yours because my case has no rational support. That's a clear victory, nothing insane about that.

"Big word make me sound smart so I am smart. Wait why do big word no talk about what I talk about?"

True dichotomy is a fairly basic term for someone who has been on debate sites for 10 years. Sorry if you considered that such a big word that someone else using it came off to you as an attempt to sound smart.

Double_R

#35

--> @Savant

"in my view, giving one side a higher burden makes the competition unbalanced."

I guess this is where we differ. I don't see it as a higher burden. Con still has to refute the case, and in the absence of a positive case of his own, he would basically have to be perfect. If Pro offers 4 different arguments that could each support the resolution, Con would have to go 4 for 4 in knocking them down or Pro wins (depending on what the resolution is of course and what would be required to affirm it).

I do agree with you though in cases of competitive debate where topics are chosen for the debaters, in those cases I would say shared BoP is fair.

I think for me what I think about is what is, what is the purpose of all of this in the first place? If we're debating for sport it's a different approach, but my thinking is that I'm always in favor of the most productive conversation. I've instigated debates before where Con comes along and ignores my whole case only to come up with his own. That truly annoys me, I wanted to see how well my case and reason for my beliefs would stack up against scrutiny and instead find myself refuting someone else's points which didn't address them at all.

Alyssa

#34

--> @Double_R

> This is just getting stupid. No one is arguing that anyone not have to defend "their side".

And this is why I've started directly quoting you. Your argument so far has been whoever has the BoP has to argue their case, and whoever does not simply has to refute their opponent. This means that within a debate, if I do not have the BoP, I can spend 100% of the time not addressing the topic and simply just deconstructing my opponent's arguments, and win the debate without having to actually address the topic. That's insane.

> The question the BoP addresses is; what is each person's side?

That's...not what the BoP is. Like, I'm trying to think if there's a *more* incorrect thing to try to shift what a BoP is onto, and I think this is actually the most wrong you can get. What you're describing is literally just picking who is Pro/Aff and who is Con/Neg on the topic. There, sides have been selected.

> Having the BoP means the burden is on you to argue for the affirmative. Not having the BoP means you need to argue the negation.

I hate this mindset. I hated this mindset a decade ago when it was running around on DDO. Side selection =/= BoP. Not only does this inherently give Con a massive advantage in literally every debate, regardless the topic, but it also just makes zero logical sense. I can defend Con in one topic, then switch the resolution from being a positive statement to a negative statement and defend Pro the next debate. The arguments I'm making have not changed, yet suddenly the burden structure has? The game changes from who is a better debater to who can meticulously craft the perfect statement that absolves them of all responsibility of having to engage in the topic. Fuck outta here with that logic.

> And throughout this chat, you've totally ignored the fact that in many if not most cases, being neutral on a proposition is the only reasonable position. A perfect example of this is in a criminal trial

I love how on the competitive debate website where we're discussing competitive debate as a hobby, you accuse me of ignoring your examples of how proving things works in *checks notes* not competitive debate.

> Not accepting one side of a true dichotomy doesn't require one to accept the opposite. This is why we address propositions one at a time.

1. Big word make me sound smart so I am smart. Wait why do big word no talk about what I talk about?
2. Literally speaking, if something is a true dichotomy and I say one side is wrong, then I am, in fact, saying that the other side is right. That is how things that are mutually exclusive work.
3. Competitive debate addresses one proposition at a time. The proposition is the resolution. There can, and should, be multiple ways to address said proposition, but everything should always link back to either proving or disproving the resolution. That is how competitive debate works.

> The issue isn't space, it's focus.

God damn, I'm getting my cardio in trying to keep up with you every time you shift the goalposts.

> resolving a fundamental difference requires both sides to stay focused on the issue at hand

Every argument within the round is supposed to be related back to the resolution, so if people are losing focus within the debate round that's just a skill issue on both sides - them for losing focus on making arguments that aren't on topic, and you for not calling them out.

> Uh, yeah I addressed this already.

If by addressed you mean mentioned it in a way that demonstrates you don't actually understand what I'm saying, then yes, you have. So lets take a step back. When I say the term "weighing argument", do you understand what I mean? For example, if I make the argument of "They're saying X creates economic profit, and I'm saying X kills people. Judges should prefer my argument because of A, B, and C.", do you understand how that functions within a debate round?

Savant Administrator

#33

--> @Double_R

"Not accepting one side of a true dichotomy doesn't require one to accept the opposite. This is why we address propositions one at a time."

I see where you're coming from, but I guess I just prefer balance, or not giving one side an easier job. As in each side is making an affirmative case as if they were instigating opposing resolutions that say the opposite thing. I think the "messiness" would be in that both sides could fail, but then you just get a stalemate. You could also have cases where each side makes arguments that don't address each other, but both cases would have to clash/contradict each other because they are claiming contradictory things. Well, maybe not always in practice, but then that's where frameworks come in. If they really are two ships passing in the night, it's probably a tie again, but in my view, giving one side a higher burden makes the competition unbalanced. It'd be a bit like saying one side wins ties in chess. Especially when we start getting into tournaments and things with randomly assigned sides, whoever gets to argue for agnosticism has less work to do.

Like, to get the same effect as a balanced BoP, you'd need to have two separate debates where each respective side accepts the burden, and see "can this person demonstrate X"? And if not, then, "can the other person demonstrate (not X)." Whereas if they both have to prove their side in a single debate, you can kinda address both simultaneously, which is more efficient.

Double_R

#32

--> @Alyssa

"Oh no! The horror! Anything but having to defend your own side!"

This is just getting stupid. No one is arguing that anyone not have to defend "their side". The question the BoP addresses is; what is each person's side?

Having the BoP means the burden is on you to argue for the affirmative. Not having the BoP means you need to argue the negation. No one gets a pass here the way you seem hell bent on portraying it as.

And throughout this chat, you've totally ignored the fact that in many if not most cases, being neutral on a proposition is the only reasonable position. A perfect example of this is in a criminal trial where even though the defendant is in fact either guilty or innocent, if there isn't enough evidence either way then the only rational position is to not presume either. According to you, if this were a debate then when one side asserts guilt the other must assert innocence, but that isn't how logic works. Not accepting one side of a true dichotomy doesn't require one to accept the opposite. This is why we address propositions one at a time.

"depth is not an issue, specifically on websites like here where character limits allow us to go as deep into literally every point as we could ever want to"

The issue isn't space, it's focus. It doesn't matter how much space you have, resolving a fundamental difference requires both sides to stay focused on the issue at hand, which is far less likely when each side is dealing with 7 or 8 different points at the same time. In that format, arguments get lost, which happens all the time. This happens in verbal exchanges all the time as well, this is where hour long discussions end with "so what were we arguing about?". It's a far less productive means of discussion.

"There's also a pretty crucial difference that I don't think you're grasping in that there's a difference between completely dropping an opponent's argument and making weighing arguments that..."

Uh, yeah I addressed this already. Again, you can strategically decide which arguments to address and which not to, but when you do not respond to an argument presented you leave the judges with no real choice to accept it. Obviously your opponent thought it was relevant or they wouldn't have made it, so in the end we end up with both sides arguing past each other.

Alyssa

#31

--> @Double_R

> This is exactly why I reject the notion that each side should have a BoP - because then each side has to not only make their own case but refute their opponent's case at the same time

Oh no! The horror! Anything but having to defend your own side! Whatever will we do?!

Part of me wants to leave it there for comedic effect, but that's not super productive. No, depth is not an issue, specifically on websites like here where character limits allow us to go as deep into literally every point as we could ever want to. In competitive debate IRL then there's some vague semblance of merit to this, but I've never seen a stock debate where things weren't addressed in a sufficient level of depth while both sides are presenting their own cases and attacking their opponent's.

There's also a pretty crucial difference that I don't think you're grasping in that there's a difference between completely dropping an opponent's argument and making weighing arguments that say "My argument is more important/more relevant than my opponent's argument because x, y, and z".

> As the instigator you get to write the resolution and you get to clarify it.

Your point? If you don't like the definitions and "clarifications" I make, then challenge them within the debate. inb4 "can't/shouldn't challenge definitions", as that's the entire point of theory/topicality arguments. If you want to see actual cop outs, it's the people who stick all their definitional arguments in the description box and say "don't accept if you don't agree to these definitions", which is such a blatant noob snipe tactic.

> If you believe something rationally you should be able to defend it.

And this doesn't also apply to the person accepting the debate because...why again?

Double_R

#30

--> @Alyssa

Also just a side thought here... If you're instigating a debate then on principal alone I think you should have the BoP. As the instigator you get to write the resolution and you get to clarify it. If you can't uphold your own BoP then why start the debate in the first place? To me insisting on a shared BoP is a cop out. If you believe something rationally you should be able to defend it.

Double_R

#29

--> @Kohai

I thought Thanos got you. Welcome back.

Double_R

#28

--> @Alyssa

You can strategically choose not to respond to your opponent's arguments because you think your case outweighs it or renders them moot, but in debate that choice does leave them on the table and forces any unbiased judge to accept them for the sake of judging. So that's a risk you take, and one I've been bitten by before. You never know what someone will find convincing, even if on a technicality.

This is exactly why I reject the notion that each side should have a BoP - because then each side has to not only make their own case but refute their opponent's case at the same time, which can get very impractical. The result is that neither side gets into any depth on their points, effectively creating a talking point battle.

The alternative is that each side sticks to what they think will win them the debate while ignoring the rest, which means not only talking past each other but also leaving the judges to have to decide what arguments are most important on their own. That is incredibly subjective and I think ultimately pointless. In that debate the only decider of who wins are the opinions the judges had coming into it.

Kohai Administrator

#27

--> @Double_R

I apologize for the forfeit. I will get this last round in!

Alyssa

#26

--> @Double_R

> Refuting arguments made by your opponent is a burden, and certainly exists in debate.

Not really. If my opponent is making an argument that isn't super important or is being outweighed by another argument I'm making, why waste time addressing it when I can just win on a more important area of the debate instead? Or, in the case of more kritical argumentation, if my case acts as a preclusionary element to my opponent's case, I may not even need to address their arguments at all, provided I'm winning on my own case.

Is it a good idea to respond to your opponent's arguments anyway? Of course. Do you strictly *have* to directly engage your opponent's arguments to win a debate? Nope.

Double_R

#25

--> @Alyssa

Refuting arguments made by your opponent is a burden, and certainly exists in debate.

Double_R

#24

--> @Savant

"What if the resolution had been "fear is at least as strong as love"? Would Con have the BoP then?"

No. Again, regardless of whether we're talking about a formal debate, a criminal trial, or informal conversation the rule is always the same; the BoP is on the person who makes the claim.

Instigators love to play games with this, like posting the resolution then making themselves the Con, but the principal is one I subscribe to in any scenario because what I care about is productive rational conversation. That's what the BoP is all about.

"I just don't think Con should be arguing the neutral position"

Why? There's nothing wrong with that.

The neutral position is in many cases perfectly legitimate, and in some cases it's the only legitimate position.

If you read a debate where you start off in the pro/affirmative position on the subject, and by the end of the debate Con manages to make you switch to being neutral purely by knocking down every argument Pro gave, wouldn't you agree that's an unequivocal victory for Con?

"Well usually it's not a matter of one side lacking arguments, but about arguments outweighing each other."

I just find that messy and less productive, not to mention far more subjective. Instead of focusing on the validity of each case through to the end, both sides end up trying to make whatever case will capture more attention. I just don't see how that makes for a better discussion.

Alyssa

#23

--> @Double_R

Hai, it's me. I'm claiming the "BoP" is the only burden that exists in competitive debate, and it's always split between both sides.

Savant Administrator

#22

--> @Double_R

Forgot to tag

Savant Administrator

#21

"That is true, but that addresses the actual fact, not the proper belief position on it. With regards to belief there are 3 options; affirmative belief, belief in the/an alternative, or neutral. Neutral is not a lack of thought, it's the result of recognizing that the currently available facts do not favor either possibility. So if a case is made and that case is negated, then neutrality at the very least is what rationally follows (without injecting a further case)."

I agree, I just don't think Con should be arguing the neutral position; I think they are arguing belief in the alternative.

"I will say that I hate shared BoP debates because they get messy and unclear. In your fear/love example; love is greater... Is one proposition. Fear is greater... Is a separate proposition. So asking each side to make a positive case means they're debating two different propositions simultaneously."

Well usually it's not a matter of one side lacking arguments, but about arguments outweighing each other. Having a fear is stronger than love debate, then a love is stronger than fear debate, will lead to a lot of redundant arguments. I think it's more space/time efficient to have one side be arguing X and the other side arguing (not X).

Casey_Risk

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I think it is very unfortunate that Pro conceded this debate. I was enjoying it as it was ongoing. I wish the participants could have agreed to simply skip round 3 and go right to concluding arguments. I still probably would have voted for Con, but it would have been a decision I'd have to actually think about. But as it stands, Con wins by default.

Imabench

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Really interesting debate during the first two rounds that unfortunately was forfeited + conceded in the latter 2 rounds. Fun thing to read through while waiting for work to end tho :D

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Conceded

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

New comment