BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moral Relativity-Child Suicide Bombers

Ryan Molenaar I feel as though we are talking in circles as not much new information has been introduced from your initial argument to your last. Yes based on what you believe, and what most others believe, what the Taliban are doing is immoral. However, in the end there is no "world order" that you speak of that can judge every single society on one moral scale. If we did that then we would be immoral people. We must put ourselves in each society's "shoes," since that is the basis of morality; understanding others and even if we do not condone what the others are doing, we at least must understand why they do it. Just as I stated, to be moral we must put ourselves on the other side and view it from there. The Taliban are indeed killing people, which is immoral since to be moral you have to value others' lives as well as your own. However, it could be interpreted as in response to other people trying to impose upon their lands and beliefs. In all honesty, who is more at fault here, the Taliban or those who are invading and imposing on them what they believe to be false beliefs? By many countries trying to say what the Taliban believe about the Quran is wrong, they are being immoral in that we must accept what others believe according to moral relativity. Also, the Taliban have a right to defend their beliefs. When you think about it further, most countries want to kill as many of the Taliban members as possible, so aren't these countries immoral as well for disregarding human life? Moral Relativism is essentially an excuse used by immoral people to prove what they believe and how they act is right. In any other moral situation, the Taliban would be considered immoral, yet with Moral Relativity, they cannot. Most of the time, and in the video, many people use subjective terms to describe what the Taliban are doing. This is not very effective and neither is the argument made you that the Taliban's beliefs are "bad." Moral Relativity describes the idea that societies that consider themselves superior to other societies cannot judge others because to do so would be immoral and in violation of what is encompassed in Moral Relativity. In conclusion, the argument I have made to excuse the Taliban's actions of using children as suicide bombers could be misconstrued as defending what they do. It is not. I have no love for the Taliban and would never condone what they do in any sense. Yet, when applied to this, at times, excuse to do "bad" things, idea of Moral Relativity, what they do can indeed be excused as just defending what they believe. They believe the Quran says something that can excuse what they do. Even in the video, those who oppose the Taliban say that it is okay to fight and kill. Perhaps this idea of suicide bombing the Taliban's way of "fighting." The Taliban also cannot be judged by other societies based on Moral Relativity since it is stated that we cannot judge other societies with the idea that we are better than them. To do that would be immoral since we are not taking into account the other side's interpretation of what they are doing.
Moral Relativity-Child Suicide Bombers

Ryan Molenaar The real question here that needs to be addressed is "What harm can come from the situation that is being argued?" The children being used as suicide bombers obviously are the ones most harmed here, and if any other moral standard were being used in this argument then there wouldn't even be a discussion about what is wrong. However, due to the parameters of Moral Relativity, we must examine who is the most hurt here. It is argued that those who are most hurt are those who rush to judgment with the ignorance of what they personally believe is the only moral standard. Many people continuously believe that the moral standard that they follow is the only moral standard and therefore is the correct one. With this ignorance, the people who judge others are themselves the ones hurt the most since they are too blind to realize that to be truly moral, you must take into account the standards of others. There are many inconsistencies and incorrect perceptions, on your part, of what took place in the video. Firstly, paradise is defined as heaven in the Quran. Also, with regards to your statement that there is only one interpretation of the Quran, this is sheer ignorance. Everyone interprets the Bible differently and it is based on the individual person and the same could be said of the Quran. There are many different facets of Christianity just as there are many different branches of Islam. Each branch reads the same thing yet they all have different beliefs and this is because what is said is interpreted differently. For you to say that there is only one way to interpret what is said in the bible would be ignorant of others and therefore would make you immoral. Everything you say about the children being told lies is correct based on what we think is the correct way to teach the Quran. For all we know, the way others, chiefly those who are targeted by the bombings, is incorrect. For us to judge something that we have no real knowledge of, being that I have never read the Quran, would be immoral. To say that the way that one group teaches the Quran is wrong would also be immoral due to the fact that we are only seeing one side of the argument based on the video we have watched. Continuing what I have previously stated nothing that the Taliban do is correct in my book, but going on what I have seen as what consists of moral relativity, not only can what they are doing can be excused, but it would be immoral for us to believe that we can judge them. Your argument is full of subjective statements about heroes and the Taliban which is irrelevant to the matter being argued which is that the Taliban's use of children as a means of suicide bombers can be excused when applied to moral relativity. Not only do I still believe this, but there have been no reasons provided in your argument to even sway my mind to the contrary due to the fact that your argument is full of irrelevant information about heroes that is also subjective and also incorrect information from the video clip.
Moral Relativity-Child Suicide Bombers

As stated in previous arguments, the usage of suicide bombers as part of the Taliban"s attacks cannot be excused by moral relativism. The children did not have a choice once the bomb was strapped to them. I might be missing something here, but what are they"re two choices? Die or get arrested. Let"s back track first. In the video I witnessed before the first round, the interviewees, members of this infamous group, said that they were told they would go to Paradise once they pushed the button. They will not even go to Heaven. Suicide is frowned upon to believers of the Quran. The thing is, the Quran is interpreted differently, as you mentioned earlier. How can something be interpreted differently? This is not two teenagers texting. This is a book written for men and women of Muslim descent to base their life around. There is one meaning. You cannot interpret it differently. The idea that the children knew what they were doing is false. The leaders show the children videos of other suicides being committed. They are taught that they should do the right thing for their country. They do not know anything different. It is only right for the people that lead this group. It is a false impression that what they do is heroic. Heroes defy what is wrong, what is universally wrong, as this is. Heroes change the script. The reason that these groups are dwindling is because of the thought that this is wrong, no matter what people believe. In conclusion, they think they are doing the right things. The universal belief is that they are wrong; that they are bad. The Quran, in which the interpret differently, tells them they are wrong. That is the highest authority. The Quran is the basis of Muslim life. It"s the same comparison to the Bible. It might seem irrelevant, but it is an example of how we act compared to how they act. It is not irrelevant. The video states that these kids are lied to. They are told false things. They are told they will be going to Paradise. They are told that they will be heroes. Heroes are not dead. These kids have no choice. They are pulled from school and placed in these groups. From then to the moment when the bomb in detonated, they have no choice to which action they can choose next. Morality is having disagreements, but when majority of the world agrees, it means that action is immoral. In my sociology class, we learned that marriage is universally followed. Marriage is the same throughout all societies. Incest is universally bad. Murder is also universally bad. They call this suicide, but when the suicide bomber has no choice but to follow through with the act, that is involuntary murder. You are ending one"s life before it should be ended. That is immoral. When they get arrested, they are taught that what they did was wrong, when it was right, and they are taught that they should be doing these despite their own beliefs. The usage of suicide bombers as part of the Taliban"s attacks cannot be excused by moral relativism. It is universally believed as a bad action.
Moral Relativity-Child Suicide Bombers

As stated in my previous argument, the Taliban"s usage of suicide bombers cannot be excused by moral relativist claims. In the film I witnessed before writing the argument, the host talked with a few members of the Taliban. The kids are being lied to. They are being told false things. They are going against the Quran, as you mentioned. Moral Relativism states that different societies have different views. It also states that we cannot judge their choices and values. The thing with Moral Relativism and the actions by the Taliban is that the majority of societies believe this is wrong. It"s also written in all moral authority books, such as the Bible and the Quran. You state in line eleven of your standard form that the Taliban teach the Quran how they interpret it. The Quran has one meaning only: what is written in the Quran. You cannot change what is written. You cannot interpret it differently than another person interprets it. The children do not know the meaning, true meaning, of the Quran because they are being lied to from the beginning. The training suicide bombers who did read the Quran for themselves, often want out of the organization. What happens when they refuse to push the button? They get arrested. They get arrested for being a human with their own brain and thoughts. That is not moral. The Taliban do want to protect their land by any means necessary. That does not excuse what they did or have done. They have been at odds with the United States of America ever since the 1990s. They flew through our buildings, causes tons and tons of deaths. Their own people committed suicide. I bet those people did not have much of a choice. To bring in another argument, these groups are almost non-existent. The Taliban is so bad. Their leaders have been hunted by many of the top countries. They are the most wanted men in the world. My view on the situation might be one thing, but when many other countries agree that they are bad, they must have done something wrong, even if they think they are doing something right. They do not care about the future of the Taliban, because the future is being killed during these suicide acts. The kids have no choice. They are put into these groups based on their father"s choice. If they do not follow through on the act, they are arrested. The universal judgment is that they disagree with the actions of the Taliban. This is about the kids and what they do. They have no choice, but when they try to fight back, their right to live is taken away. In conclusion, the Taliban"s usage of suicide bombers cannot be excused by moral relativist claims. The claims that different societies have different views, but in this case, the universal view or claim is that this is immoral and wrong. The suicide bombers are being lied to. They are being told false things that are interpreted from the Quran. They believe what they are being told is right because they don"t know any different. The Quran has one meaning, and that meaning is not what is being told to these kids.
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

"my opponent ignores the existence of descriptive moral subjectivists, which do not claim nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral"-if you believe in intrinsic morality, you are not a subjective moralist, you're an objective moralist"subjectivists claim things are extrinsically immoral"-translation: subjectivists claim actions may be disliked. is this in opposition to what moral nihilists believe?consider an analogy: 1. Bob doesnt believe in a deity2. Bob defines the universe to be God, and therefore claims "god exists"3. Ian doesnt believe in a deity4. Ian claims "i dont believe in God, but the universe does exist"both Bob and Ian believe in the universe, and not a deity. they have no differences in position based on those premises. saying subjectivists believe things can be moral/immoral is like saying Bob believes in God. it is just a semantic mindgame"subjectivists in meta-ethics claim that there exists morality, while nihilists claim it does not"-again, this is just more talk about what both parties say and no admission or denial of the fact that they mean the same things, but apply different definitions to their terms."Wikipedia doesn't take trump over two scholarly works on the subject" i was pointing out that moral nihilism doesnt necessarily entail anything more than it is defined to be. just as you cant accurately claim that atheists are those who believe in evolution because those are separate issues. Con has made all sorts of assertions about what it means to be a moral nihilist, while ignoring what the definition actually is.if the definition of a "mother" is "a woman who has a child", and Jessi is a woman with a child, then she is a mother, by definition, right? just as subjective moralists are moral nihilists by the definition of moral nihilism: "the view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral"do moral nihilists and moral relativists make different claims about morality? yes, the wording they use is different, but the claims they make mean the same things if you understand the definitions they are applying
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

Firstly my opponent ignores the existence of descriptive moral subjectivists, which do not claim nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral as I have pointed out. Secondly my opponent ignores that moral nihilists day nothing is extrinsically immoral, while subjectivists claim things are extrinsically immoral. Finally, as I've pointed out, subjectivists in meta-ethics claim that there exists morality, while nihilists claim it does not. Each of these disprove my opponents position. Also, regarding whether Wikipedia is right or not, I shall point out two things: firstly, Wikipedia doesn't take trump over two scholarly works on the subject. For another, Wikipedia claims on moral nihilism: Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but does not assign any static truth-values to moral statements. The fact of the matter is moral subjectivism can still condemn, and as such is sufficiently different from moral nihilism.
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

i dont know where my opponent has gotten these assumptions about what moral nihilism entails. all this talk about theories and writings related to moral nihilism doesnt change the fact that moral nihilism is not necessarily any more or any less than "the view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral" as defined on wikipedia, the very source my opponent referenced. even subjective moralists admit that "nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral", so by definition, they are moral nihilists.
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

My opponent claims that moral nihilism firstly does not claim that moral proposition has no truth value, but instead they have false value. The difference is that I claim moral nihilism can possibly reject outright that morality is a proposition. For example, Ayer's emotivism is nihilistic, believing that moral statements do not express propositions. Another example is error theory. Ignoring the majority of nihilism would be foolish, so we must accept that moral nihilists can claim that moral propositions are neither true nor false.This idea is also backed up by near-every source, from wikipedia[1], where definitions are based on collective thought, to university books[2], to books by scholars on the subject[3], who writes "no proposition who makes a moral claim is compatible with moral nihilism"[3]. As such, claiming moral nihilists must claim that moral propositions exist is nonsensical and demonstrably false.My opponent regarding my second contention simply says that they can imagine a subjectivist come to similar conclusions to a nihilist. While this may be possible, it is by no way a necessary link, nor is it even that relevant. A descriptivist subjectivist doesn't need to be a nihilist: Peter Singer or R.M.Hare are two examples of a cognitive and non-cognitivist who accept descriptive subjectivism yet are not nihilists. There are certainly many more as well. This is a major point of my argument.Finally, my opponent's point to rebut the difference of meta-ethical subjectivism and nihilism is irrelevant. Yes, again, they can both affirm for example emotivism. A nihilist and subjectivist can both also affirm vegetarianism and join the Labour Party and wear Green on Labour day: it doesn't matter. The way they get to their conclusions makes a massive difference and is important.Moreover, my opponent admits that a subjectivist can claim rape is immoral - maybe just for them, or just in their culture, but nevertheless, this is very distinct to neither moral nor immoral for everyone. The means and argumentation to their conclusion is what is important, and just arguing that you can get similar conclusions is irrelevant and does not touch the resolution proper.To summarise, my opponent firstly mischaracterises moral nihilism: moral nihilists can say that moral statements are not propositions, while a subjectivist can. This is a massive distinction in itself. Then my opponent points out how subjectivists can claim something is immoral while a nihilist cannot: this again is an important distinction. Finally, I point out how descriptive subjectivists are certainly massively different to moral nihilists, which are an impotrant field of philosophy and thus show subjective morality as being substantially different to moral nihilism.1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

"Firstly, moral nihilism a meta-ethical position (that moral propositions have no truth value)"moral nihilists do not believe that moral propositions are neither true nor false, they believe that they are all false (assuming they are meant literally), like you state in your 3rd point "error theory claims that ethical truths are necessarily false"."Secondly, moral subjectivism can be a meta-ethical position, but it is also a descriptivist position (that different cultures have different ideas on what is moral, whether it is right or wrong) and a normative position (that we ought to be tolerant as no-one is objectively right or wrong)."i'd imagine that every moral nihilist also understands that "different cultures have different ideas on what is moral", and moral nihilists may just as easily promote tolerance, just as subjective moralists may be intolerant of others preferences like human sacrifice, abortion, the death penalty, or female circumcision"Finally, meta-ethical subjectivism is different to meta-ethical nihilism. Error theory for example is different to moral subjectivism because error theory claims that ethical truths are necessarily false, while subjectivism say they can be true or false if they abide by the individual's culture or emotions."there is what they say and then there is what they actually mean. when you look at the substance behind what a subjective moralist might say and what a moral nihilist might say, there is no difference between them. for instance:example of a subjective moralist claim: "rape can subjectively be immoral". translation: rape is not objectively immoral, but people may dislike and object to rapeexample of a moral nihilist claim: "rape is not immoral, but people may dislike and object to rape". translation: rape is not objectively immoral, but people may dislike and object to rape.clearly, the two above claims mean the same exact thing. the moral nihilist is just more upfront about what they mean. instead of saying that both parties "say" different things, explain how the things that they say are substantively different.
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

I accept. I will go down three points for my argument:Firstly, moral nihilism a meta-ethical position (that moral propositions have no truth value)Secondly, moral subjectivism can be a meta-ethical position, but it is also a descriptivist position (that different cultures have different ideas on what is moral, whether it is right or wrong) and a normative position (that we ought to be tolerant as no-one is objectively right or wrong). Finally, meta-ethical subjectivism is different to meta-ethical nihilism. Error theory for example is different to moral subjectivism because error theory claims that ethical truths are necessarily false, while subjectivism say they can be true or false if they abide by the individual's culture or emotions.
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

moral nihilists claim that nothing is moral or immoral. subjective moralists often disagree by saying something along the lines of "objective morality doesnt exist, but things can be subjectively moral or immoral". they generally define subjective immorality as some sorts of harmful actions that people might subjectively dislike. guess what? moral nihilists and even objective moralists also believe there are "harmful actions that people might subjectively dislike". the difference is that objective moralists and moral nihilists dont apply the word morality as loosely. saying "rape is immoral" is like saying "coffee is good" in that it creates the impression that it is to be taken objectively. it is an objectively framed sentence since it does not have any subjective pronoun like in the claims "i like coffee" or "i dislike rape". those last statements are clear whereas the first statements can be mistaken as objective claims my argument is that proponents of subjective morality are merely moral nihilists who use semantics to romanticize their position, perhaps because they feel more comfortable using ambiguous claims like "rape is immoral" than saying "i dislike rape, but it's not immoral" if there is a non-semantic difference between moral nihilism and subjective moralism, please explain what it is.