What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make.

If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't.

This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.

The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality.

> What part is the Socratic method?

This part:

> A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".

> B) yes, and now you have conceded.

Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil.

That's not the trick here. The trick is that the format of his talks - and the typical lack of preparation on the part of the typical college student - prohibits nuanced answers.

The correct answer there (to someone who, unlike me, does not believe in objective morality) is something like "I oppose everything Hitler did and stood for. Notwithstanding that, your question is incoherent." What unprepared 20 year old comes up with that on the spot? Much less be prepared to back it up, only in sound bites (because that's what works in the format)?

If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?

> If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion?

You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.

Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality.

You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes.

If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.

> Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating.

No but having the student admit objective morality exists is debating. You know this. I know you know this. You know the audience reaction is to the person losing the point too. You know you are being deceitful pretending the audience reaction is the debating technique not the actual technique that caused the reaction. I know you are being deceitful too. Stop posting, go outside.