User Tag List

View Poll Results: Who won Battle Royale II?

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Knight

    27 65.85%
  • Zakath

    14 34.15%
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 95

Thread: POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale II

  1. #1
    Axe dropper webby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The deep dark cellar
    Posts
    153
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    540

    Question POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale II

    Everything is over but the cryin'!

    Great battle! Who won?
    - Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed. - Proverbs 27:5

  2. #2
    Journeyman Vitamin J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Love is the drug.
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    Knight hands down.

    A blowout of epic proportion.
    Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

  3. #3
    Over 750 post club Goose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Paradise, IN, US
    Posts
    769
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    222
    LOL I like your comment V J.

    Not only did Knight hit with emotion and common sense, but logic as well. Made me all misty eyed.

  4. #4
    Over 3000 post club Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    3,003
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    250

    Talking Knight!

    Knight came out in full intensity and that never ceased being the case. The truth prevailed, once again leaving Zakath as the loser!
    Jesus Loves You

  5. #5
    Who is the stooge now? novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Ordained to be here
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    224
    Good Knight!!!

    Zakath's last post was in line with his rounds 2 and 8. In a word... "bad". In two words.... "bad", "bad".
    Oh, wise guy eh?

  6. #6
    Rookie admiral_d's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    So, the answer to the question -

    Does absolute morality exist?

    is Yes.....?

    And Knight answered what that morality is because he could point to it and say that ->that is absolute morality....right?

    So, what is absolute morality?

    I seemed to have failed to see the answer.....

  7. #7
    Over 750 post club Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    815
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2375
    Apparently, something is constitutes an absolute because we all (as a group and as a nation) agree on it. Apparently, if it achieves success as an emotive appeal, it must be an absolute.

    Apparently.

    Once again, the looseness of the fundamentalist's definition of an absolute is laid plain through a general lack of any substance other than assertion and emotive appeals to the majority. Somewhere, someone neglected to actually prove the existance of their moral absolutes.

  8. #8
    Journeyman Eireann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    Knight provided a definition of absolute morality. That definition provided that there must be a standard of absolute right and wrong that supercedes human standards.

    What Knight showed: humans almost universally believe that murder and rape are wrong (although Zak provided some clear biblical evidence of "justified" murder and rape, which Knight and his supporters have curiously avoided addressing). Note the key words herein -- humans believe. Knight appealed to human standards only throughout his entire side of the debate, yet his entire argument hinges on there being a standard that supercedes the human. When asked to demonstrate it, he responded that he didn't have to show it because the point of the debate wasn't to show the source of the standard. Well, the problem is, he wasn't asked to show the source of the standard, he was asked to show the standard itself and to demonstrate its existence. What was the point of the debate? I thought it was to demonstrate absolute morals, but Knight succeeded only in showing morals that he has only measured by human standards.

    Could someone please show me where Knight demonstrated moral absolutes? Can someone please show me where he demonstrated that the standard that is required by his definition exists? Can someone please show me where Knight did anything but tuck his tail between his legs and run in terror from that question?

    As the "affirmative" combatant, Knight was required to do the following things:

    1) Provide a definition of absolute morality, as he understands it. He did this.

    2) Provide (not merely assert, or measure only by appealing to human standards) that the supercedent standard that he provided in his definition exists. In other words, he needed to be able to go beyond human experience, beyond human emotion, and beyond human belief to demonstrate this point that is so integral to his argument. He did not do this.

    By default, Knight loses the debate. There are no two ways about it. I don't give a red darn how much you all agree with his position, he simply did not support the case he was trying to make. He simply did not provide for the existence of the standard he alleged exists. He appealed to human emotion and human logic. Never once did he appeal to the one thing that he was required by his definition to appeal to -- anything superceding humanity. If the only way you can measure the thing is by appealing to factors within the realm of human experience, then "the thing" is by nature relative to the human experience.

    You see, a relativist does not need to demonstrate that morals or ethics are not absolute (they may or may not be, but the point is, it's impossible to prove). He only needs to demonstrate that they are relative. They can be relative and absolute at the same time, because the two terms are not automatically exclusive. An absolute merely provides that they are relative in the same way to everyone. So, a relativist can easily prove that morals and ethics are relative, without having to debunk absolutism. But, the same cannot be said of absolutism, which is impossible to prove, as Knight has so clumsily demonstrated.
    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

  9. #9
    Journeyman Eireann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    By the same token, Zakath also loses the debate. He did not manage to demonstrate that absolute morals don't exist, which was the position he opted for in the debate. Zakath loses by default merely because of the wording. Had Zakath been debating that "relative morals do exist" he would have won easily and without contest, since all morals are relative, whether they are absolute or not.

    However, neither side should feel bad about losing the debate on this topic, because this topic is a Catch-22. It is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of absolute morality. The best either side can accomplish is, "I believe in them," or "I don't believe in them." Proof pro or con is beyond the ken of any human being.

    That said, both combatants argued well within the form they chose -- Zakath with hypothetical scenarios and biblical references, and Knight with ad hominem emotional appeals. From a debatory stance, though, Knight certainly wins the popular vote, due to this being a Christian forum. But I think we all know that had this been a real debate, properly controlled and maintained, in a real debate atmosphere (the kind where they are officially judged and appointed, like in academia), Knight would not have passed muster, for the simple fact that he never built or established the case that was required of his position.
    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

  10. #10
    Journeyman Eireann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    Originally posted by Flipper
    Apparently, something is constitutes an absolute because we all (as a group and as a nation) agree on it. Apparently, if it achieves success as an emotive appeal, it must be an absolute.
    Yep. In other words, he has taken the relativist's stance on morality and is merely changing the terminology. The tack he took for proving morality, though, only served to show the existence of relative morals. "I believe, you believe, he/she believes, we believe, everyone believes ..." (which was Knight's main approach to establishing the absolute) simply means the moral is relative to "I, you, he/she, we, everyone ..."
    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

  11. #11
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up Zakath

    Knight accepted the burden of proof and he failed to produce it. He did not show how morals transcend our own human standards, period. Given a specific action, some will agree that it is wrong. If I agree that a specific instance of rape is wrong, well I would never say it is right. Just because I cannot find any justification for such an event and can say that it is always wrong *in my mind*, does not make it absolute, at least not according to the definition provided. Zakath wins by default.

  12. #12
    Rookie admiral_d's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Being a lover of good stories, and a director of a drama group, I would add that Knight's appeal to the emotional by contrasting absolute depravity vs absolute morality is a shallow emotional appeal.

    One could argue that the 10 Commandments are an absolute morality, but with the Saturday Sabbath being changed from Jesus' time til now, that absolute appears null......

    To argue that absolute morality exists, one would have to show where a person lived by absolute morality...by a set of known standards ...Unfortunately, they are not universal, for as what one sees as required law to live by, another may see as foolishness.

  13. #13
    cirisme
    Guest
    I would have said Zakath, but very early on Zakath pretty much shifted burden of proof onto himself and Knight nailed him on it. Because of it Knight wins, hands down.

  14. #14
    Journeyman Eireann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    238
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    220
    Originally posted by cirisme
    I would have said Zakath, but very early on Zakath pretty much shifted burden of proof onto himself and Knight nailed him on it. Because of it Knight wins, hands down.
    I would say that neither side wins. In a debate on a topic such as this one, one can't say that failure to prove one side proves the other. The burden of proof was on both participants, and both failed to prove their accepted positions, but Zakath only because of the wording, as I mentioned before. Knight failed to prove that absolutes exist, and Zakath failed to prove that they don't. All in all, Zakath provided a more sound argument, and Knight provided a more emotional argument. One cannot "shift the burden of proof" onto the other, because the burden of proof lay on both from the very start. As I said, it's a catch-22 topic, because it is impossible to prove either way the existence of absolutes. Now, there could have been a winner had the debate been formatted like this:

    Knight: I will prove the existence of absolute morals.
    Zakath: I will prove the existence of relative morals.

    Unfortunately, they're not mutually exclusive, so it isn't sufficient to prove one by disproving the other or failing to prove the other. Bottom line -- this was a winnerless debate. A fun debate, but no winner can possibly be declared.
    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

  15. #15
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1099924
    Eireann, thanks for the feedback I do appreciate it. You make some interesting points.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us