• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:09
CEST 21:09
KST 04:09
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues29
StarCraft 2
General
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
ASL20 General Discussion Soulkey on ASL S20 BW General Discussion ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D NaDa's Body
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL20] Ro16 Group D [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Ro16 Group C
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 2238 users

Is Morality Subjective or Objective? - Page 38

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 36 37 38 39 40 Next All
Suisen
Profile Joined April 2011
256 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-15 23:53:26
May 15 2011 23:45 GMT
#741
You're an idiot.

All this thread I have been correction people's posts, including yours, explaining views, hammering down the same essential points, politely. And now you say this?

No. Subjective and objective morality are two different positions to take. It's not a debate of semantics. Just because people vote the wrong way because they don't understand doesn't mean it is.

In about 90% of your posts you are an idiot.



User was temp banned for this post.
xAPOCALYPSEx
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
1418 Posts
May 15 2011 23:53 GMT
#742
sometimes I wish that all the threads like this didn't end in people who are apparently and 'obviously' the world's greatest debaters constantly bickering at one another. It takes the fun out of the thread.

I believe that morality is objective. If it was subjective, then in a sense, morality wouldn't really exist. It would just be someone's own code of honor, per se.
Suisen
Profile Joined April 2011
256 Posts
May 15 2011 23:55 GMT
#743
It has nothing to do with thinking you are a great debater. Rude offensive comments meant to annoy don't have to be accepted.

VIB tries to take the fun out of most threads. Only thing I can do about it is call him out on it.
zemiron
Profile Joined August 2010
United States481 Posts
May 16 2011 00:12 GMT
#744
Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence.

Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality.
"Fractal alligators. Like a normal alligator, but instead of arms, there are more alligators." -Day9
zemiron
Profile Joined August 2010
United States481 Posts
May 16 2011 00:17 GMT
#745
Also, if anyone is interested a really good and short book on morality and ethics, then you should check out Being Good by Simon Blackburn. It's a really good introduction to ethics and/or moral philosophy.
"Fractal alligators. Like a normal alligator, but instead of arms, there are more alligators." -Day9
Canadium
Profile Joined November 2010
Canada171 Posts
May 16 2011 03:28 GMT
#746
Moral subjectivity and the tolerance are scary philosophical viewpoints to tout because it feels like the only logical conclusion is anarchy :/
There is a moral framework that is objective.
Right/wrong good/bad are inherent human attributes.
You better run Charles....
LF9
Profile Joined November 2009
United States537 Posts
May 16 2011 03:39 GMT
#747
I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.
raviy
Profile Joined October 2010
Australia207 Posts
May 16 2011 03:43 GMT
#748
On May 16 2011 04:39 phyvo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 15 2011 19:50 raviy wrote:
On May 15 2011 15:03 Canadium wrote:
This is an incredibly complex issue but:
I believe that there is a definite moral framework that is objective and indisputable.
For example:
Is it wrong to kill another human being? Yes. <-- Objective
Is it wrong to kill someone who has murdered other humans? Yes <--Subjective
This is just a rough example but I believe there must be an existing moral framework. If there was no moral framework there would be chaos. I do not believe that right and wrong are determined socially (ie. murder has consequences like jail that's why most people would say it's wrong) because it begs the question "Who decided it was wrong to kill?" and "Why did they decide it was wrong to kill?" "Where did they get the idea of wrong in the first place?"
It scares me that so many people think morality is subjective to be quite honest.


Why is it wrong to kill another human being? There are many reasons to kill a human being that would be satisfactory to some people. Two people trapped in a room with only one can of tuna to eat for example. That said, the law would say differently.

It scares me that you think morality is objective, and thereby think you can impose your supposedly "objective" view of morality on the rest of the world.


The irony of your post is making my head explode.

Look, the basic problem of subjective morals is that you can't say killing someone is wrong so long as the actor is acting according to his/her personal morals.

A logical corollary is that you can't say that having objective morals and trying to spread them across the world is wrong for the same reason.

This is why subjective morality has no teeth. You can kill me for whatever reason you personally want, but you can't scream "it's not right! it's not moral" at me if I kill you, let alone if I choose to spread my particular brand of morals to the rest of the world.


You understand that my saying morals are subjective does not mean that I don't have my own moral system, yes? So I fail to see the irony.

If someone does an act, such as killing another person, that may be against my moral system, but be kosher with their own. I do not necessarily view that as acceptable. Different societies can have different interpretations of what is moral, and one society exporting their morals across the world is alarming. I don't understand how you can equate "morals are subjective" with "everything anyone does is okay as long as it's okay with them".

Morality is subjective. If an entire society feels that a man killing another person as a display of strength is an acceptable reason, then the world should not be entitled to impose their view of morality on that society and seek the man's arrest.

Although that brings up the question of how we define societies, but that's another question for another day.
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States643 Posts
May 16 2011 04:03 GMT
#749
On May 16 2011 08:11 VIB wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2011 07:46 Suisen wrote:
The question is about what morality is.
So you FINALLY understand you're only arguing semantics? I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word. If you come and say "yea that would be subjective, but I think morality is something else". Then there's nothing to talk about. We're comparing apples to oranges and I'm not gonna argue which definition of the word is "right" or which is "wrong".

Words are just words, no definition is wrong. But I'm not gonna waste time discussing each individual's personal different definition of each word. If you like your own meaning of what "morals" is. Then it's fine. But please do understand that you're not arguing morality. In 90% of your posts you're arguing semantics, Suisen.



VIB, above you wrote " I talk about the "morality" that I think is what how most people define the word."

What is the definition you refer to here?
To say that I'm missing the point, you would first have to show that such work can have a point.
Fyodor
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Canada971 Posts
May 16 2011 04:28 GMT
#750
On May 16 2011 09:12 zemiron wrote:
Moral rules don't have to be absolute to be objective. Each individual situation can have an objectively correct answer. To find the objectively correct answer to each moral situation, one needs to use logical and rational discovery based on evidence.

Even if morality isn't objective, it definitely doesn't mean that it's totally arbitrary or subjective. We can have a conversation about what makes a good car. There may not be an objectively binding answer to what makes a good car, but if someone said that a good car was a car that got terrible gas mileage and barely runs, you could confidently and correctly say that they are wrong. We can do this with morality without having an objective source for morality.

Actually, you can't find correct answers to moral situations like that. It may sound right if you have a scientific background but you have no idea how alien this sounds to someone with a proper philosophy background. Completely nonsensical.

This is due to the simple fact that you have to decide something or put your foot down somewhere. You have to decide if what you want is "well-being" like Harris mentioned. If freedom is what you want. Anyways, there's this decision to be made and it's nothing like science.
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
bellweather
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States404 Posts
May 16 2011 05:00 GMT
#751
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote:
I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.


Took a great big leap there didn't ya? First of all "legislating morals" is completely ambiguous, so that'll slide until you define it. Prohibition of certain drugs though, absolutely should be "legislated" on regardless of what an individual's stance on the issue is. Drug trade is harmful to the user directly and to others indirectly. People can argue for/against the effectiveness of making drugs illegal as opposed to say using economic devices, but that's a completely argument. The point is the government should absolutely take a stance and a role in the limiting of drug use.
A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isnt' there. -Charles Darwin
Gaspa
Profile Joined February 2011
Brazil109 Posts
May 16 2011 05:19 GMT
#752
Hey there, sorry if this has been posted earlier. I'm not going through 38 pages of posts, but thought some might find this link useful if they're interested in morality:

http://edge.org/conversation/a-new-science-of-morality-part-1

There's 8 parts to this conversation on Edge.org. I haven't even seen all of it myself, but the parts I have seen had some amazing food for thought.
"I cannot believe you were stupid enough to be offended by what I said" -- A. Schoenberg
ildrean
Profile Joined September 2010
18 Posts
May 16 2011 05:21 GMT
#753
In my eyes, morality is both subjective and objective. Every individual is going to have their own, subjective, interpretation of morals, and if you believe in free will, then those morals are self-determined. At the same time, society, or certain groups of the world has a shared sense of morality that comes from a combination of many similar subjective moral systems. As a whole, this makes morals objective on the larger scheme of things, because the culture of the current day holds a static belief system.

Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today.
levelping
Profile Joined May 2010
Singapore759 Posts
May 16 2011 05:23 GMT
#754
On May 16 2011 12:39 LF9 wrote:
I clicked the wrong button on the vote, but I have and always will believe that morality is ENTIRELY subjective in every way. That is why legislating morals is a bad thing, i.e. prohibition of drugs, gay marriage, etc.


But see... many other laws are premised on certain moral positions. You raise the prohibition of gay marriage, but the entire system of human rights is premised on a liberal moral view point about personal autonomy/liberty.

Your argument is not satisfactory because it essentially says that all morality should be subjective when you disagree with it, but objective when it suits your case.
0neder
Profile Joined July 2009
United States3733 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-16 05:37:47
May 16 2011 05:33 GMT
#755
One thing's for sure, if morality is objective, then this poll is irrelevant. =)

I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time.

There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority.

Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.
raviy
Profile Joined October 2010
Australia207 Posts
May 16 2011 05:44 GMT
#756
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote:
Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.


"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"

... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?
levelping
Profile Joined May 2010
Singapore759 Posts
May 16 2011 06:19 GMT
#757
On May 16 2011 14:44 raviy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote:
Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.


"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"

... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?


This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east.
Traveler
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States451 Posts
May 16 2011 06:37 GMT
#758
On May 16 2011 15:19 levelping wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 16 2011 14:44 raviy wrote:
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote:
Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.


"if morality is... objective, ... it still is objective"

... care to expand and provide concrete rationale to your opinion?


This isn't very difficult to understand.... replace morality with "the sun rises in the east." No matter how much you think that the sun comes up from underneath your bed, the sun objectively still rises in the east.


Except for the fact that the sun does that despite whatever humanity thinks. We can only observe that.

Morality on the other hand is only put into practice by humans, and individuals have different conceptions of it.
In order for morality to be objective it needs to be self-enforcing somehow.
Can you ever argue in favor of something without first proving it?
flowSthead
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1065 Posts
May 16 2011 09:37 GMT
#759
On May 16 2011 14:33 0neder wrote:
One thing's for sure, if morality is objective, then this poll is irrelevant. =)

I believe it's objective. It's not as convenient for people addicted to a great video game like SC2 to believe that, when we could be using our free time to have a better impact on the world, especially when moral subjectivity has been so popular for such a long time.

There are immutable natural laws that govern the universe. We don't completely understand them yet, but the laws are there, and are the framework of our existence. It is not unreasonable, then, to believe that their are immutable laws that govern our behavior towards each other, and that a supreme person who has completed his journey of learning those laws and applying them to who he is dictates them to other people (his kids) who are still at the beginning of that journey. I believe that God abides by these eternal laws of nature and his obedience to them is His source of power, wisdom, and authority.

Another point to consider is that if morality is, in fact, objective, no matter how much it is not believed to be, it still is objective and founded on the unchangeable laws of the universe.


Actually, that is not something you can assume, and it would be unreasonable to assume that because there are universal physical laws there are universal moral laws. You can make an argument that universal moral laws exist, and yours comes from God, but you cannot say that because universal physical laws exist, that therefore universal moral laws exist because the physical has nothing to do with the moral.

I think I should also point out at this point that just because people take a pragmatic approach and follow the legal and moral guidelines of a society, does not mean that morality is objective. It just means that people are relatively rational compared to animals. I should also note that biological and genetic instincts and predispositions are not an effective argument for morality. I will use a somewhat controversial example to make my point. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is an ineffective mutation. The goal of the human race and individual humans is propagation, so sex between a male and a female is necessary. This also means that the majority of people will necessarily be heterosexual if the human race is to survive, and that biologically heterosexuals will have a greater chance to continue to create more heterosexuals (assuming it is a genetic predisposition). Now, mutations will always come and create some homosexuals, but not enough to change them into the majority.

So what does this mean? This means that if you take the biological and genetic as a basis for morality, then every single genetic majority suddenly becomes morally right. Being straight, brown or black haired, asian, and right handed is now a moral right. Being gay, blonde, blue eyed, left handed, albino, is now a moral wrong. Now some of you may look at this and say that sexual preference is not comparable to hair color in terms of morality. But if genetics and biology are your basis for argument, then they absolutely become part of morality, since you are favoring genetic predisposition as your argument for what objective morals are.

This is absolutely a credible position to take, despite my saying it is not an effective argument for morality up above. The reason I said it was not effective, is because I imagine that most people would find this stance uncomfortable. Now I happen to believe in subjective morality, but if this genetic objective morality is you stance, the fine. We have nothing to talk about since we have different, unalterable views on morality.


Someone earlier used the example of slavery in the U.S.; when it was morally correct to own slaves, that was because most of the population believed it to be okay. As time progressed, less and less people believed it to be so, and the overall opinion changed. Eventually, the collective, subjective morals of the population created the feeling of objective opposition to slavery that we see today.


This is a misuse of the word objective. Changing attitudes do not correlate to objectivity. One could make the argument that the majority of people still favor slavery, but that they are too afraid to speak up and so constantly believe they are in the minority. It would be impossible to prove, but because that example can even be made, it basically negates the so called objectivity of your stance. Never mind that objective morality is not a time based situation. You cannot philosophically make the statement that objective morality changes over the time. It is a contradiction; objective morality does not change.


Moral subjectivity and the tolerance are scary philosophical viewpoints to tout because it feels like the only logical conclusion is anarchy :/


No, the only logical conclusion is not anarchy, the same way that the only logical conclusion of Christianity is not a theocracy. I can believe in subjective morality while maintaining a pragmatic view of the world and taking part in the collective morality of society. I think it should be pretty obvious for example, that nations do not have one morality. The fact that there are drug debates, abortion debates, debates about war, the death penalty, etc. should point out that even though legally there is one "right" or "wrong", the people of the world do not hold to that at all.

Just as an example, I can believe that killing someone is not wrong, but that does not mean that I will go on a killing spree. Maintaining my freedom is important to me, and being accepted by society is also important in achieving whatever goals or dreams I have. This means that I will most likely never kill someone in my life. Does it mean that I am more likely to kill someone that those people who believe that murder is always wrong? I do not know. How can you argue something like that with 0 statistical proof? I should also point out that just because I believe that killing someone is not wrong, does not mean that I also believe that killing someone is right. I could just view the act of killing in a neutral way, which gives me no inherent incentive to go around murdering citizens.

This is something that objective viewpoints seem to have difficulty grasping. My lack of consensus with you on your morals does not correlate to my taking the exact opposite morals. If I do not agree that being gay is wrong, it does not mean I will suddenly turn everyone gay. Very often there are not black and white choices in moral questions. Another example, full abortion and 0 abortion are not the only choices.

There is no threat in the idea of subjective morality. It is just a different view of the universe ^_^.
"You can be creative but I will crush it under the iron fist of my conservative play." - Liquid`Tyler █ MVP ■ MC ■ Boxer ■ Grubby █
iloveav
Profile Joined November 2008
Poland1478 Posts
May 16 2011 09:56 GMT
#760
By beeing pragmatic, i learned something interesting: Moral is subjective, simply becouse on a daily basis we decide if we want to follow our moral or not, wahtever it might be.
Ofc we could discuss about where morals come from, like sociaty, god, childhood, etc.
But it wont change the fact we decide if we want to follow it, and that choice comes to us many many times a day.

aka LRM)Cats_Paw.
Prev 1 36 37 38 39 40 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 14h 51m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
UpATreeSC 322
mouzHeroMarine 239
SteadfastSC 224
IndyStarCraft 128
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 19536
EffOrt 724
Mini 652
Soulkey 120
Dewaltoss 89
ggaemo 88
Larva 72
sas.Sziky 40
Aegong 30
Hyun 29
[ Show more ]
scan(afreeca) 26
Sexy 14
Dota 2
qojqva4822
Fuzer 226
Counter-Strike
fl0m1248
flusha98
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King42
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu335
Other Games
Sick2394
FrodaN2105
Beastyqt576
mouzStarbuck228
Hui .203
C9.Mang0134
QueenE64
Trikslyr56
NeuroSwarm38
MindelVK7
ToD6
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Reevou 5
• davetesta1
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki20
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 4096
• WagamamaTV662
League of Legends
• Nemesis2873
• TFBlade883
Other Games
• imaqtpie707
• Shiphtur216
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
14h 51m
Zoun vs Classic
Map Test Tournament
15h 51m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 7h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 12h
RSL Revival
1d 14h
Reynor vs Cure
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.