azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You've only demonstrated that this is harmful to the individual undergoing suffering.Correct, a trait that applies to all things in a category will also apply to each thing in a category. You have given me no motivation to actually care about said individual as an outsider.Nor have I attempted to. As a living entity your rational actions are based on what is in your best interests in accordance with your values. Since you don't have sufficient instincts to manage your actions, a rational code of conduct is required. Since people live among other people, a code of conduct that keeps others from harming you, will also keep you from harming them.Why is it being alive or happy objectively a good thing?Being alive is the metaphysically given. Being happy isn't inherently good. The "good" is a concept we created to express that which supports, promotes, enhances, etc our life. If you achieve the "good" then you may feel happy. Some people feel happy when they achieve the opposite of the "good". look at many predatory animals, genocidal dictators, etc.Each of your examples value their own life. If a thing actually doesn't value it's life, then it doesn't live much longer. Predatory animals are eating for the sake of their own life. Genocidal dictators are irrational. They value their own life, but their actions cause them to exist in paranoid fear, the next usurper around each corner.Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going.whyThis is the nature of living things. The highly organized pattern of complexity that is a living entity must acquire and process energy (value) in order to maintain the highly ordered pattern of complexity. Put another way, Life exists. It won't exist if it doesn't take certain measures. Therefore, the existence of the "is" gives rise to the "ought".
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I myself am a skeptic, but there comes a time when one must confess that the implication of some extreme skepticism renders a vastly incoherent discussion. It’s unfortunate that this type of thinking is viewed sincerely even in support of suffering, misery, malice and other admittedly egregious forms of moral decrepitude, but such is the predicament we are met with when people insist on extreme skepticism in any matter. Still, one must wonder why the same type of skepticism isn’t accepted or viewed as sincere when regarding other objective scientific claims such as in health or physics. You wouldn’t argue that a terminal cancer patient isn’t actually unhealthy even when there are subjective perceptions on health. Morality though? Who’s to say that kidnapping little kids and raping them is necessarily “bad?” It’s this sort of double standard that comes off as being intellectually dishonest.I admit that I cannot provide any radical justification insisted by extreme skeptics as to why bad things are bad, good things are good, etc. If you don’t already accept that “not suffering” is a value worth considering then there doesn’t seem to be anything I could say to convince you that you should consider it a value. Similarly, if someone doesn’t see the value in respecting the rules of logic, there’s no logic one can give to convince them that they should respect it. But I implore you to seek me out if you wish to have a practical and meaningful discussion on the subject of morality.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You wouldn’t argue that a terminal cancer patient isn’t actually unhealthy even when there are subjective perceptions on health.When the object of discussion is on the objectivity of health, I probably would, depending on the given definition.If you don’t already accept that “not suffering” is a value worth consideringI do, but I must admit that it is not something objectively wrong. We consider it wrong for a variety of reason, all of which subjective.Similarly, if someone doesn’t see the value in respecting the rules of logic, there’s no logic one can give to convince them that they should respect itAgain, dependent on endgoal. If said endgoal is the discovery of truth, then we have a reason there. But again, engoals are subjective.Honestly, I don't see how you can have a discussion on the objectivity of morality while basing it on non-objective premises.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.No. Instinctual. And replace good with right.Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrongSlavery being right or wrong is subjective. The slave owner does not think it is wrong. So when you say "immoral people" you are subjectively classifying them in their own subjective beliefs. Why are you subjectively classifying them? Because I do not feel as though they were "immoral." They may be immoral to you but there morality is subject to belief.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

No. Instinctual. And replace good with right.Being influenced by instinct does not negate any moral objectivity. If anything it only solidifies the concept.And why should I replace good with right (who made you the authority on the matter)? It doesn’t matter either way, I will humor you and assert that “Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively right” doesn't change my position in any fundamental way whatsoever.Slavery being right or wrong is subjective.No. Our perception of it is but the act of oppressively owning another human is wrong regardless of perception.The slave owner does not think it is wrong.Because they are immoral. This is not a measure of moral subjectivity; it’s a measure of moral awareness.So when you say "immoral people" you are subjectively classifying them in their own subjective beliefs. Why are you subjectively classifying them?No. I am considering slavery morally wrong on all accounts and asserting that anyone who considers it morally right to be immoral. I would also consider rape as objectively wrong on all accounts. Objective morality.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

How can something be an objective moral if one cannot have awareness of it? Are you saying slave owners were/are psychologically handicapped?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Ignorance of right or wrong does not make immoral acts moral. Its can absolve culpability, but not morality.Are you saying slave owners were/are psychologically handicapped?I'm saying that theyre immoral on the basis that they consider owning slaves morally right/good.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

They can have moral awareness. Their moral awareness may consist of owning humans being right. Your moral awareness may deem that wrong. Which is why it is subjective.Say the slave does not want to be a owned. One might say the slave lacks moral awareness.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Their moral awareness may consist of owning humans being right.I argue that what you call moral awareness in this instance would be a lack thereof in actuality due to the observable negative effects that owning slaves causes to the well being of the slaves and to the society for that matter.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

How? Not negative effects on survival. Slave reproduce, eat, and sleep. Them workinkng is actually positive. Now mentally is a different story. I think the mentality is where subjectivity comes into play. Some slaves enjoyed being owned (albiet very rare).
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

How? Not negative effects on survival.Arguable.Regardless, survival does not constitute the whole of “wellbeing” which would lead to the determination of things being right or wrong.Now mentally is a different story. I think the mentality is where subjectivity comes into play. Some slaves enjoyed being owned (albiet very rare)Some slaves enjoying being owned (however lacking in relevance) would constitute a subjective perspective which would have no bearing on the demonstrable proof which shows that slavery is detrimental to the wellbeing of a population.If someone desires to be owned, and they can find someone who would enjoy owning them, then by all means. Although I would speculate as to whether this would actually constitute slavery at that point. Sounds like more of a sexual fetish ;)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

What is "well-being"? The slave is living, being taken care of, reproducing, and being productive, so...?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

What is "well-being"?I’m confident that just about any agreed upon (dictionary) definition of the word would suffice. Here’s Merriam-Webster’s and Wikipedia’s takes on it.The slave is living, being taken care of, reproducing, and being productive, so...?Yes. As long as they have permission from their masters. And one could argue that the conditions in which they lived, brought up children, and worked in were not conducive to their wellbeing. BTW, if you’re growing as disgusted with arguing the merits of slavery as I am hearing them, feel free to change the subject.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

How can something be an objective moral if one cannot have awareness of it?Replace "cannot" with "does not".They same way people can build a house without awareness of the methods for the best possible house.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Pardon my repetitiveness, but-Our perception of it is but the act of oppressively owning another human is wrong regardless of perception.whythe act of oppressively owning another human is wrongwhy I am considering slavery morally wrong on all accounts and asserting that anyone who considers it morally right to be immoral.whyI would also consider rape as objectively wrong on all accounts.why
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Slavery being right or wrong is subjective. I disagree. Slavery is wrong because people have the right to be free.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity. You feel that way about slaves which makes it subjective. But simplistic subjectivity is incomprehensible to you. Because you are a woman you think your ideals are objectively right. Which is why I dislike engaging in debates the incorrigible.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity. You feel that way about slaves which makes it subjective. But simplistic subjectivity is incomprehensible to you. Because you are a woman you think your ideals are objectively right. Which is why I dislike engaging in debates the incorrigible. Spoken like a true priviliged sexist male. Women are just as capable as men. You must have a small penis because you sure are making up for your short comings. ;)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

My penis is an average 5.? inches. And it is true women are more emotion than men. Biologically. Just like men are biologically dominant because of there size. Women, however, are able to deal with a lot emotional, and physical stress because of their sexual composition.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Well that was a strange tangent for a debate about morality. Dude, if you think a debater is not up to the task of making reasoned arguments, you either post a logical counter or you ignore. It's irrelevant to the debate and insulting to say "you don't have the brains for this topic" (I know that's not how you said it). Either way, that kind of response is unnecessary.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You must be very insecure. I merely just wanted to point out that because you are arguing erroneously, then that must mean you do not know enough about the topic. If you take truthful criticisms disdainfully or insulting, then that is your choice. I prefer being criticized because it helps eliminate the personal ignorant perspective of myself and to make sure that the next time a similar situation comes up I can think more carefully.As for not responding, I am not sure what you mean. I do respond to any argument I am faced with. If I do not then it is probably because it did not show on "New Argument Activity" or I simply just missed it. If I have no response I do not feel compelled to be always right. I will say that I have nothing further. But if I started the argument then I probably do have a response, it may take a while if I do not have enough knowledge to answer. As you said I answer with a logical counter. But if I am required an answer I will give one. Unlike some, I will not argue with complete ignorance of a topic.Also, the time where I said "I typed a full response but clicked back on my phone" I gave a page long answer. I was infuriated when it got deleted. So all I did was point out what I thought was a quick logic failure. So do not profile me off of one incidence. If I fail to respond, just remind me in a different argument to go back and respond. I will gladly do so.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

haha easy killer. That post wasn't in reference to me at all. There was quite a lack of communication there. My fault, I'll re-word it:Dude, if you think a debater is not up to the task of making reasoned arguments, you should either post a logical counter or you should ignore.The above is what I should have said. Here's kind of a far out example: Imagine someone comes to the this debate and says "Puppies are my personal objective morality". This doesn't warrant a response. You should ignore it. Consider your statement:This debate consist of intellectuality FAR beyond your mental capacity.You then went on to state your relevant position. The above statement is not relevant to any debate. If it's a true statement, it isn't something that anyone could improve. Furthermore, if you believe its a true statement, then why engage? I merely just wanted to point out that because you are arguing erroneously, then that must mean you do not know enough about the topic.I'm curious about which argument is erroneous. I'm not sure I have seen you point out ignorance yet. I have seen you make statements about intellectual capabilities quite a bit. In the above case at least you followed up with an actual response. I think this is progress.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I did not "engage" I informed. I did so because I left an emotional debate on fetuses with that person. I say emotion because all of that persons responses were emotionally derived instead of intellectually derived. Tis why I made the statement.I have seen you point out ignorance yet The IQ mini-argument, the wildlife argument, humans being intellectually capable of dealing with their impacts on GCC but yet die in the thousands when a correspondence of GCC hits. The respondence that we were intellectually capable of preventing... Anyway, what I meant by all of that is you do not seem to research your facts before displaying them.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

I did not "engage" I informedThe information may have been sent, but because of the nature of the information it was not likely received. Does it still qualify as informing? Regardless, it isn't necessary to the debate. It occurs to me that there are a number of miscommunications. This may be from my imprecise use of language. Consider human beings living through a period of increased climate change. Through natural selection they evolve higher intelligence to deal with this situation. This means that humanity can "deal with" climate change, it doesn't mean that each human or group of humans are equipped to live through a climate based disaster. Your assertion that Katrina disproves this theory of development seemed outrageous until I considered the language I used in presenting it. (I leave out words like "should" sometimes too). The definition of "morality" that I have been basing my position on is that it is a code of conduct. Having a standard of action is necessary for survival when one does not have instincts to drive decisions. This includes obvious situations as well as the not so obvious. Having the ability to be rational, the idea of adhering to rationality is itself a code of conduct and would be necessary to properly respond to the obvious. I assert that a property of human beings is desire to maintain ones own life, it's inherent. This assertion hasn't been a large part of the debate. If this assertion is correct, then one can conclude that there is some conduct that is more conducive to this trait than other conduct. Taken to it's logical end, there is some conduct that is most conducive. This is what I would call an objective morality. This doesn't mean that this conduct, most conducive to life, is actually entirely or consistently practiced.My take on morality as code of conduct isn’t even that far from Jace’s position, though he disagrees entirely. This can only be because of a different use or understanding of definitions.I do not think you seem to know exactly what I mean of non-existing time. Or the context that I am using time in.That was entirely true. We must’ve been talking about time in different ways. For this reason I tried to explain what time is in different ways. Though you conform to a temporal language and understanding of events, you kept denying the existence of time. That is unreasonable from the view of time that I take (a view I hope I have conveyed by now). you do not seem to research your facts before displaying them."Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction."You must know this is ridiculously false right? When you said this, I immediately considered all of earths history. In this context you really seem to be missing something.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I assert that a property of human beings is desire to maintain ones own life, it's inherentThis is very rare actually. Most people do things that bodily needs call for. For example, most people do not eat because they know they need to in order to survive. People eat because they are hungry or just have a taste for something. I am sure you mean that people just 'don't want to die.' What I am saying is that there are no 'moral' actions that are involved in preventing death. If there is I would love to hear a few.Though you conform to a temporal language and understanding of events, you kept denying the existence of time.I meant prove times existence outside of just conception, the same with mathematics. You can't. Math and time are just 'fillers' when we need to better understand something. Although it is a generally accepted concept, it does not mean its existence."Aside from the meteor, humans have been the cause of all animal extinction."I admit I exacerbated with it, but I was not ignorant to the actual number of animals that are extinct because of humans. I also failed in syntax by not wording it: "humans have been the cause for all 'unnatural' animal extinctions." But I can assure no ignorance was involved. More like miscommunication.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

People eat because they are hungry or just have a taste for something.Morality comes into play with what and how we gain our sustenance. Math and time are just 'fillers' when we need to better understand something.If you mean they are concepts (non-existent by your definition I think) that help us understand what we observe then I guess we have found our agreement.humans have been the cause for all 'unnatural' animal extinctionsWhile I'm sure I know what you mean by this, I would like you to be a little explicit about something. If an species becomes invasive and kills out a few other species, is this unnatural? For my purposes here, the reason they have invaded is natural. Lets say a naturally changing environment.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If you mean they are concepts (non-existent by your definition I think) that help us understand what we observe then I guess we have found our agreement.Again, I stated that a concept will exist the minute it is commenced. This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it does--which is where the discordancy stems from.If an species becomes invasive and kills out a few other species, is this unnatural? For my purposes here, the reason they have invaded is natural. Lets say a naturally changing environment.Give me one example of a species--other than humans--eradicating another. 350+, (and counting), is a bit extreme. And for you to say "naturally changing environment" implicating that pollution, in every form, is natural. Aquatic species swimming into, in their eyes, 'unidentifiable nets'. Or, aquatic species ingesting toxic foreign objects due to uncontrollable ignorance, is absurd. Humans creating a detrimental systematic effect on life- -along with correlational essentialities (in regards to life) such as, but not limited to, fresh water, atmospheric components, temperature requirements for life--is not "natural". To my understanding, you are affirming the notion that because we are a natural species, it deems any action that we take as being 'natural'. Which means that all of these 'detrimental effects' I assert that follow suite, subsequently from human actions, would therefore be justified because of the origin of said species? Understandable. But the characteristics of humans can be thought of to, more than likely, have been influenced or injected by some external cause (I am not suggesting anything phantasmagorical). One would make this suggestion due to the fact that humans are unnecessarily killing off life(forms); and the fact that humans have specific qualities that no assumed life force has (avoiding reproduction, ideologies such as 'morality', etc.) Of course this is not conclusive, but neither is: a 'natural' negatively changing environment due to a natural antecedent inflicting this detrimental negativity unnecessarily.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I stated that a concept will exist the minute it is commencedYou never stated that in any conversation with me.This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it doesI haven't in any conversation with you.And for you to say "naturally changing environment" implicating that pollution, in every form, is natural.* Not in the slightest. You have let your emotions on the subject take you so far off from my question that you can't seem to answer it. The ice age was natural (and "unnecessarily" detrimental or negative to some species). The subsequent thaw was natural. When temperatures change like this, species will move, when they do, some will become an invasive species. Invasive species tend to have an advantage as there is little or no predation in the new territory. Is this natural? Try to just answer the question rather than putting words in my mouth.