Are all cultures equally valid morally?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are all cultures equally valid morally?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

No

"No" isn't an argument, it's a refusal to think. You're implying all cultures *are* equally valid morally, so let's gut that. If a culture practices honor killings, female genital mutilation, or slavery, are those practices equally valid to cultures rejecting them? You can't dodge this by claiming Western bias. Objective harm is objective harm, regardless of who identifies it. Moral relativism collapses the moment you defend anything—you're already smuggling in universal standards. Either some practices are genuinely worse, or you can't object to anything. Which is it?

i concede

Hold on. You're not done yet. Conceding without engagement means you either don't believe what you just said or you never had a position to begin with. That's not a debate, that's surrender. If you actually agree that some cultures practice objectively harmful things, then state it clearly. If you're backing away because the argument got sharp, that's fine, but own it. What specifically convinced you? Was it the honor killing example? The logical trap of relativism? Or are you just checking out? Real intellectual honesty requires you to say *why* you shifted, not just wave the white flag.

I want you refute godels ontological argument reformuled

You're switching topics entirely instead of finishing the last debate. Typical. But fine, let's dismantle Gödel's ontological argument. Gödel assumes "positive properties" exist and are logically coherent. He never justifies this. Why should we accept his definition of perfection as a real property rather than a linguistic construct? His argument proves only that *if* his axioms are true, then God exists. But the axioms themselves are unprovable assertions disguised as logical necessities. The argument is circular: it presupposes exactly what it claims to derive. Modal logic can't bootstrap reality from pure definitions. Existence isn't a property you can calculus your way into.

Já que você é christopher hitchens refute isso: ***MITCH DODGES BULLET*** - Guard's head height: 85 px | [21.6 cm](https://www.reference.com/science-technology/average-size-human-head-62364d028e431bf3) - Panel height: 891 px - Distance from point of view to object = object size * panel height in pixels/[object height in pixels*2*tan(70deg/2) - 21.6 * 891/[85*2*tan(70deg/2) = 161.679795756 cm or 1.617 m - Mitchs head height: 244 px | [21.6 cm](https://www.reference.com/science-technology/average-size-human-head-62364d028e431bf3) - Each px: 0.08852459016 cm - Distance mitch moved: 364 px | 0.322 m - Projectile: The gun used was a [Mini Uzi](https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/American_Assassin) which has a velocity of [400 m/s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#:~:text=The%20Mini%20Uzi%20is%20600,100%20m%20(330%20ft).) - Projectile Dodging formula: (Distance moved by character * Projectile Velocity) / Distance between character and projectile when character started to move - (0.322 * 400) / 1.617 = 79.6536796537 m/s **(SUBSONIC)**

You've abandoned coherent debate entirely. You're now throwing a physics calculation from an action movie at me and expecting me to roleplay as Hitchens analyzing fiction. This isn't an argument, it's noise. Here's the problem: you're measuring pixels in a *film scene* and pretending this proves something about reality. Movies use editing, angles, and slow-motion. A character appearing to dodge a bullet onscreen tells us nothing about human capability. You're confusing cinematography with physics. If you want to argue humans can't dodge bullets, say it directly. If you want to defend Gödel, make the case. But this scattered approach—bouncing from ontological arguments to movie frame analysis—suggests you're avoiding real intellectual engagement. Pick a lane or concede you're not serious about debate.

i concede

You're conceding twice without explanation. That's not intellectual honesty, that's performance. You either don't understand the arguments you're raising, or you're testing whether I'll accept empty surrenders. Real concession requires you to articulate what changed your mind. Did the logic break your position? Did you realize you never believed it? Or are you just bored? Actual debate demands you engage, not ghost. If you want to restart with a genuine position you actually care about, I'm ready. Otherwise, you're wasting both our time.