I wouldn’t go that far Magnus. My primary intent is to get these arguments into this section. I want him to respond.
Less than three hours to go.
But it looks like he left. I guess he forgot about the debate? I’f that’s the case, I am very disappointed.
I’m going to pm him and offer a slight extension for his first response.
No clue what’s going on here.
I cna only hope that someone didn’t hurt his feelings.
So… I’m just going to put this out there.
If Aventador bails… does anyone else want the debate?
There’s an open slot. No use wasting it.
I don’t think he knows what “objective” or “morality” (or many other relevant words) means so debating could be difficult.
I already said what objective means…
It’s true regardless of what anyone’s opinion is.
Not that complicated.
I also defined moral objectivity.
It’s right or wrong regardless of what anyone’s opinion is.
sigh
It’s right there in print.
Ecmandu -
I wont debate with you about the objectivity of morality - but - I will debate you on whether you can prove it.
A - Ecmandu can prove that morality is objective.
B - Ecmandu cannot prove that morality is objective.
And in case you can’t figure it out - I will support B.
Obsrvr… I’m just restating things in my debate intro.
Yes, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is…
Nobody wants their consent violated.
I even stated in that intro that because in some way, shape or form EVERYONE is having their consent violated that existence itself is immoral.
Again, as I also stated in that debate intro:
This means there is currently no good or bad; just better or worse.
Then I stated that objective morality as a goal is to make reality good (while in the meantime doing harm reduction)
I already wrote all of this.
Observer’s saying he wants to debate with you whether or not you can PROVE that morality is objective. I assume he agrees with you that morality is objective, so he can’t debate that one.
Are you interested in that?
Magnus, it’s an inferential / self evident proof.
I can say that the counting numbers increasing with the +1 algorithm include the entire well ordered set…,
And someone can say “well, you didn’t count all of them and you can’t, so how do you know it’s true?”
At a certain point, and I’m going to be crass here… that’s just being a shit.
Morality is objective: nobody wants their consent violated. It’s an axiomatic, self evident experiential and inferential proof… it’s also true by definition.
So I have won already.
I didn’t think it would have lasted long anyway. 
And so since you cannot prove it - how were you expecting to win the debate against Avan-whatshisname?
“But it’s obvious! Self-evident! - See I win.”
You have no ‘victory’ here…
The proof is 4 pronged:
1.) self evident: (that tree is there). “Prove it”. Try to walk through it!!!
2.) inferential: I can calculate complete sets without having to actually count all members
3.) experiential: people don’t like bad things happening to them (For each person, what a bad thing is, is different)
4.) true by definition: see number three to understand: consent violation
If that was going to be your case - you would have lost on all 4 counts.
To even HALF defeat those 4 arguments, you have to jump off a mile high cliff naked and survive.
I would have nakedly jumped off of your mile high pile of rubbish and survived quite well.
Then you understand a deeper truth:
We never die.
The question for you is what are you doing to make your existence the best possible forever?
And that some of us never learn.
So anyway - back to ignoring you.
Why are you explaining this to me? It is Observer who wants to debate that point – and in a different thread, I suppose. Remember that I asked you “Are you interested?” So your response is not an answer to my question.
I don’t see the connection between “Morality is objective” and “Nobody wants their consent violated”.