I can see your point. But I'm not trying to appeal directly to emotion. Matt keeps bringing up liberal-friendly examples like homosexual pedophilia.

If that example, of another culture's traditions which we find wrong, can be used. Then why not naziism?

American slavery is possibly a better example because its benefit to society is easier to recognize, even though its universally understood to be a bad thing.

I'm not attacking them, they aren't attacking me. Its still on friendly terms.


However, I think avoiding the question would just be unfair. That would be like me asking them to prove evolution, but they can't use any pieces of evidence that contradict creation. Furthermore, how do you measure emotional response? How do you know that people in the debate weren't victims of pedophilia and so they react strongly to his use of pederasty.

Its all quite subjective, but in the greater idea of whether or not morals are absolute, American slavery, murder, and the nazis are relevant. I could just use the more general use of the word 'murder', but then they might say that no culture universally accepts murder. Then I'd give the example of hitler and we'd be right back where we started.