Pro
#1
"Most people should believe in existence of objective morality"
Pro takes position that most people should believe in existence of objective morality.
Con takes position that most people should "not believe in existence of objective morality".
Objective morality is defined as "things person objectively should/shouldn't do or objectively should/shouldn't believe in".
Burden of proof is shared.
Rules in description are agreed upon when accepting debate, and cannot be challenged. Same for definitions.
believe:
to think that something is true, correct, or real:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe
- Self contradiction in opponent's position:
If my opponent says that people should believe in his position, while claiming no objective "should believe in" exists, he commits a self-defeat where he at same time wants to claim his position is what people should objectively believe in, while claiming people shouldnt objectively believe in anything.
II. Unwinnable situation for killer
If we were to meet a killer, he would be faced with only 3 logical options presented by us:
- Killing is wrong
- Killing is not wrong
- Killing is okay when he does it (special pleading)
Should killer claim 1, he admits killing is wrong.
Should killer claim 2, we can claim "then we can kill the killer".
Should killer claim 3, and assume special pleading is okay, we can likewise do special pleading and say that killing him is okay because we do it.
With only 3 logical options available, none benefit the killer. And these 3 logical options remain true as objective morality, because 4th option doesnt exist. If my opponent comes up with "objectively true 4th option", he would be admitting objective morality instead of denying it.
