BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath
- Thread starter webby
- Start date
- Status
After reading Knight's 2nd post I would assume the debate topic was: What logically follows if no moral absolutes exist?
Sadly that is not the topic however and Knight has failed to offer one shread of positive evidence of moral absolutes.
Maybe the first topic would have been more interesting. Zakath need not address any of the questions Knight raises as they do not deal in the least with the topic.
Debating the perceived consequences of relativism might have been a better debate and one that it appears Knight would like to have debated. Or perhaps debating if Zakath contradicted his own beliefs by his lifestyle would have been ok as well. Knight's main points all deal with these areas and I hope Zakath doesnt sidetrack the debate by addressing them.
For the record I do not agree with any of Knights contentions concerning his perceived consequences of relative morality but I do not see why Zakath should delve into it in this debate. It does not seem relevant in my opinion.
Zakath could be shown to be a contradictory fool (although I doubt it) or someone who can never take an authoritative stance on moral issues but that does nothing to address the topic: Is there such a thing as absolute morality.
I would love to see a debate with a different topic concerning relativism however.
Are people voting on the strength of the actual arguments that address the topic?
Sadly that is not the topic however and Knight has failed to offer one shread of positive evidence of moral absolutes.
Maybe the first topic would have been more interesting. Zakath need not address any of the questions Knight raises as they do not deal in the least with the topic.
Debating the perceived consequences of relativism might have been a better debate and one that it appears Knight would like to have debated. Or perhaps debating if Zakath contradicted his own beliefs by his lifestyle would have been ok as well. Knight's main points all deal with these areas and I hope Zakath doesnt sidetrack the debate by addressing them.
For the record I do not agree with any of Knights contentions concerning his perceived consequences of relative morality but I do not see why Zakath should delve into it in this debate. It does not seem relevant in my opinion.
Zakath could be shown to be a contradictory fool (although I doubt it) or someone who can never take an authoritative stance on moral issues but that does nothing to address the topic: Is there such a thing as absolute morality.
I would love to see a debate with a different topic concerning relativism however.
Are people voting on the strength of the actual arguments that address the topic?
Last edited:
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Valmoon what are you talking about???? I couldn't disagree with you more. When in a debate and your opponent insinuates he essentially agrees with you - you better jump all over it!!!
For instance, if you are in a debate say on the topic of national government funded health care (just for sake of discussion). And your position is that national health care is NOT a good idea. Your opponent is arguing that national government funded health care IS a good idea. Within the debate you ask your opponent if he honestly believes that national health care is a good idea and he answers "NO", you would be STUPID not to jump all over your opponent!
This is essentially what happened when Knight asked Zakath if he really believed that there are no actions or behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right. Zakath answered that he did believe there are actions and behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right.
This has relevance written all over it!
For instance, if you are in a debate say on the topic of national government funded health care (just for sake of discussion). And your position is that national health care is NOT a good idea. Your opponent is arguing that national government funded health care IS a good idea. Within the debate you ask your opponent if he honestly believes that national health care is a good idea and he answers "NO", you would be STUPID not to jump all over your opponent!
This is essentially what happened when Knight asked Zakath if he really believed that there are no actions or behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right. Zakath answered that he did believe there are actions and behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right.
This has relevance written all over it!
Evangelion
New member
Novice -
He might be talking about the abuse of human rights. Frankly, I don't know if he is or not - it's just a suggestion.
He might be talking about the abuse of human rights. Frankly, I don't know if he is or not - it's just a suggestion.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
weather or not the actually believe in it does not effect the outcome. The thing here is the argument. Who can present the better one. It's not about what you believe, but what you can prove effectively.
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Eireann
New member
There is a certain ambiguity to the last two (actually the last three) posts, wherein Zakath answered Knight's question, and Knight challenged his answer. The ambiguity begins with Knight's original question, which I'll paraphrase here (since I forget to copy it). It basically went like this:
Q: Zakath, do you believe there are some things that are wrong even if they are accepted by a society, government, or culture?
Ambiguous because: it does not clarify just how the culture/society in question relates to Zakath. Is Knight asking if he believes in such wrongs if they are accepted by Zakath's society, or by any given society?
Not speaking for Zakath, but I assume that if Knight had been asking clearly about Zakath's own society, then Zak probably would have answered differently, because we usually view right and wrong within the context of our own society (whether that "society" is a neighborhood, city, state, country, religion, ethnic group, or whatever). As such, none of us are likely to consider a thing wrong if our society accepts it as right, unless it is viewed as wrong by another society that we are also a part of. Each of us belongs to a number of societies, and some affect our morality more strongly than others. It depends on which society we most strongly identify with the moral. A Christian may live in an American society that does not view premarital sex as wrong, but the Christian society does. If that person identifies more strongly with the Christian society in regards to that moral, then that particular view on premarital sex is likely to override the other. If he identifies less strongly with the Christian society, then he may adopt the larger view toward premarital sex.
On the other hand, if Knight had clearly been talking about "any given society", then Zak's answer makes perfect sense (although Knight is right that Zak probably misspoke by saying "yes" instead of "no," probably having misread the question). As Pilgrim demonstrated on his thread about Pakistani Tribal Law and Absolute Morality, there are at least some societies in Pakistan that accept gang-rape as a right punishment for what we would see as a minor transgression (or not a transgression at all). Those of us who are relativists would say that it is wrong, because it is wrong in our society. Our notions of right and wrong are held in context with our society. As I've said a number of times "wrong" and "absolute wrong" are two different things.
I would score round 2 even. Zakath lost a point by miswording himself. Knight lost a point by not being clear about the context of his question to Zakath.
Q: Zakath, do you believe there are some things that are wrong even if they are accepted by a society, government, or culture?
Ambiguous because: it does not clarify just how the culture/society in question relates to Zakath. Is Knight asking if he believes in such wrongs if they are accepted by Zakath's society, or by any given society?
Not speaking for Zakath, but I assume that if Knight had been asking clearly about Zakath's own society, then Zak probably would have answered differently, because we usually view right and wrong within the context of our own society (whether that "society" is a neighborhood, city, state, country, religion, ethnic group, or whatever). As such, none of us are likely to consider a thing wrong if our society accepts it as right, unless it is viewed as wrong by another society that we are also a part of. Each of us belongs to a number of societies, and some affect our morality more strongly than others. It depends on which society we most strongly identify with the moral. A Christian may live in an American society that does not view premarital sex as wrong, but the Christian society does. If that person identifies more strongly with the Christian society in regards to that moral, then that particular view on premarital sex is likely to override the other. If he identifies less strongly with the Christian society, then he may adopt the larger view toward premarital sex.
On the other hand, if Knight had clearly been talking about "any given society", then Zak's answer makes perfect sense (although Knight is right that Zak probably misspoke by saying "yes" instead of "no," probably having misread the question). As Pilgrim demonstrated on his thread about Pakistani Tribal Law and Absolute Morality, there are at least some societies in Pakistan that accept gang-rape as a right punishment for what we would see as a minor transgression (or not a transgression at all). Those of us who are relativists would say that it is wrong, because it is wrong in our society. Our notions of right and wrong are held in context with our society. As I've said a number of times "wrong" and "absolute wrong" are two different things.
I would score round 2 even. Zakath lost a point by miswording himself. Knight lost a point by not being clear about the context of his question to Zakath.
Posted by Novice:
"This is essentially what happened when Knight asked Zakath if he really believed that there are no actions or behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right. Zakath answered that he did believe there are actions and behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right."
And that addresses "Is there such a thing as absolute morality" how? Did Zakath say, "I have my views and they are right or just that he has his own opinions of right and wrong and they may differ from society, government, and the individual?
Or is it somehow an absolute statement to say, "I think such and such is wrong."
"This is essentially what happened when Knight asked Zakath if he really believed that there are no actions or behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right. Zakath answered that he did believe there are actions and behaviors that are wrong even if the individual, society or government accepted them as right."
And that addresses "Is there such a thing as absolute morality" how? Did Zakath say, "I have my views and they are right or just that he has his own opinions of right and wrong and they may differ from society, government, and the individual?
Or is it somehow an absolute statement to say, "I think such and such is wrong."
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Well, think about it......
If something is considered wrong even if a individual, society or government thinks its right you are by default placing a standard of right vs. wrong that IS NOT relative. If the standard is NOT relative to the individual, society or government then it MUST have an absolute quality to it, as there are no other alternatives.
The question was framed with the addition of "EVEN if that action or behavior happens to be accepted by any given society, government or individual?" To hold to the notion that something is wrong EVEN if that action or behavior happens to be accepted by any given society, government or individual you are denying the "rightness" that should be relative to the given society, government or individual.
Evangelion
New member
Zak is speaking for himself, remember. He can still claim that such-and-such is wrong from his perspective, even if others disagree.
Standing challange
Standing challange
Hey I just got off the phone with Bob Enyart and he loved the idea of this fighting... er... wrestling... er... boxing... er... grappling... er... discussion page and made a standing challange of his own.
He told me he would take on any or all combatants, live (no two minute correction time), on his show (knowing that we on Theologyonline have the most skilled debaters in the world... even if some of them are moronic God haters or idgits that claim that God is an unliving, unmoving, rock).
Just give him a call at 1-800-8Enyart (1-800-836-9278) between 9 and 10 pm ET. (and wait for the slaughter to begin.)
Although I will warn you... getting into a debate with the big "E" is kind of like getting your shoe lace caught in a gear. At first it seems like no big deal but by the time you realize just what is happening to you, it's too late... and the whole time the horrible grinding of your bones is reaching your ears, you just keep thinking you can't belive what is happening to you.
Standing challange
Hey I just got off the phone with Bob Enyart and he loved the idea of this fighting... er... wrestling... er... boxing... er... grappling... er... discussion page and made a standing challange of his own.
He told me he would take on any or all combatants, live (no two minute correction time), on his show (knowing that we on Theologyonline have the most skilled debaters in the world... even if some of them are moronic God haters or idgits that claim that God is an unliving, unmoving, rock).
Just give him a call at 1-800-8Enyart (1-800-836-9278) between 9 and 10 pm ET. (and wait for the slaughter to begin.)
Although I will warn you... getting into a debate with the big "E" is kind of like getting your shoe lace caught in a gear. At first it seems like no big deal but by the time you realize just what is happening to you, it's too late... and the whole time the horrible grinding of your bones is reaching your ears, you just keep thinking you can't belive what is happening to you.
C
cirisme
Guest
Man, Knight hit Zakath harder than what we originally thought. 
Evangelion
New member
I am wondering if there's any point in phoning a radio station for the dubious pleasure of being verbally abused (and screamed at) by the talkshow host.
Does Enyart realise that rabid ad hominems and shouting competitions are not actually permitted in a formal debate?
Does Enyart realise that rabid ad hominems and shouting competitions are not actually permitted in a formal debate?
- Status