azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things."You keep making unwarranted assumptions.My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong."I already answered you on this point. The issue of morality being subjective or objective has an objective answer. There are issues that have objective, factual answers and positions.If this is too hard for you to understand, then realise that morality being categorised as subjective is an objective statement because it relies on definition, not feeling.You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense.It isn't an issue of right or wrong. Those are moral issues. You don't use moral arguments to justify morality, because you're arguing in circles.If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.Morality cannot be objective because rightness and wrongness do not exist externally to our imaginations, and different organisms have different ideas of right and wrong.Chickens will kill each others' offspring as a matter of keeping rival young away from their own, and they will take territories at the expense of members of their group. The males will rape the females and keep a harem. These are examples of chicken morality, what they decide as right and wrong.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate). If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth. Because if he is the source, and origin of what IS, then he is also the objective "original," "model" and "Truth." Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate).Morality cannot be objective because it is based on a subjective sense, a feeling. Saying that god makes morality, a subjective thing, objective is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth. No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow. Also if you try to argue that god is objective, again you are making the mistake of confusing authority with objectivity, or you have committed a logical contradiction by assuming that god is all-present which cannot fit with our universe.Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.I'll end with an example that should be easy to grasp.Kim Jong-il is the supreme leader of North Korea. He makes the laws according to his nature, and enforces those laws with his police and military force. According to your reasoning, he is the source of North Korean objective values, because he is the ultimate leader where he resides.The simple answer is that he makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

...is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."The simple answer is that [ Kim Jong Il ] makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS. No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow.No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS. Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS. That's what "god" is defined to be. A cosmic wizard, who uses magic.Kim Jong-il is a human version of what god is described as: authoritarian, infallible, and all-knowing.No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS. Whims reflect the nature of a person. In the case of god, any moral laws he makes are based on his whims. They lack objectivity because they do not exist in the universe apart from concepts in the minds of intelligent beings.Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.Here's a simple litmus test to show you're wrong:If morals were grounded in reality, then we could quantitatively measure them like how we measure cosmic background radiation, or gravity, or entropy. We cannot.Your "argument" uses a word with positive connotations "nature" to replace an equivalent word "whims" and then conflates that with reality, as if all his whims make up reality when if he did create morality, his whims that lead to its development would be apart from those whims that created reality. Do you follow?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Morality cannot be objective because it is based on a subjective sense, a feeling.That's not the definition of morality. What makes you say that?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

yes. but on an individual basis only. we are all free to believe what we want. thats what we were given by the higher power.. free will. we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....This is an argument for subjective morality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Only in as far as self-preservation. Unless they have a psychological health issue, no one describes murder as a pleasant experience. It's not th at murder is a universal taboo, so much as it will always be considered a "bad" deed in the subconscious we call a heart. To an extent objective morality does exist, but only in the interest of protecting and preserving the species.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species." For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species."Morality is an emergent phenomenon based on our evolved minds.For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.Adultery is not objectively morally wrong, and that you suggest it is must mean you don't know what objectivity is.That you feel it is wrong has no basis on objectivity.If it were objectively wrong, then natural law would either not permit it or condemn it.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Morals are based on opinions and ideas which are obviously biased.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

The same could be said of everything else known to mankind.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Why, so it can! That doesn't instantly make morals objective, though.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

No, but it makes the argument above invalid, which is the object of a disputation.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

How, pray tell, does simply finding more items that fit a description make the original item no longer qualify?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Well, unless you want to argue that nothing is anything and everyone is always right no matter what (which kind of defeats the purpose of seeking truth or having an argument in the first place), it means that you need to make a more specific argument.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Granted. I suppose taking fault with how obviously wrong your original argument was would have made more sense.Morals, you see, lie clearly within the realm of the objective. It's practically part of their definition that they are a primarily personal code of behavior. Unless you fiercely believe in a higher power, (making further debate pointless) one has to admit that morals are not set in stone.If, on the other hand, one were to argue as you already have; that everything is objective (including witnessed events, educated theories, quantifiable evidence, etc.) you are radically broadening the definition of "objective" far beyond the relatively simple scope required to cast morals as such, rendering this and all other debates pointless and making the same mistake you are now accusing me of.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

How do you know this? Can you give examples of how murder, for instance, is based on biased opinions and/or ideas?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

No. No they do not. Objective things are materialistic. I've never seen a moral floating around, they only exist in the mind. Sure, the mind is composed of material, but then your talking about the quantitative properties of the brain, not the qualitative properties of the mind.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Do numbers exist? Does natural selection exist?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Do numbers exist? Things exist, but numbering them requires some sort of subjective projection.Does natural selection exist?Again, the act exists, but the labeling of it is subjective.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I'm not sure if numbers are as "concrete" as objective morals are, but...You say "things exist," ... you mean objectively, external to perception, though our perception is subjective, we know with certainty enough to state "things exist." But if it's 3 things in a certain group or locality, that grouping of things, or the number of them doesn't exist outside of our perception or "projection"? If that were true than wouldn't you carry out the logic to say the "things" don't really exist either?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

There's no line between objective and subjective. They aren't opposite, but complimentary. So, in a way objective things are subjective because they are perceived subjectively, then again subjective morals are in a way objective because they do in fact exist manifested by your very physical brain.But, "things" are more objective than thoughts an that things are rooted in the objective where thoughts are rooted in the subjective. So I say objective morals don't exist. In a way they do, but not in the way everyone here seems to be saying they do. Objective morals exist in that there is no clear separating between the subjective and the objective, not in that there are absolute set morals that are 100% correct and free of contradiction.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

It doesn't require projection to understand that one object and another object make two objects. It simply requires understanding what the terms refer to, objectively.Labelling is not purely subjective. If it were communication would break down entire. Words have agreed upon, universal purpose which is derived objectively.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Objective things are not confined to materialism. It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong. We know, you know they are wrong. There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse). Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Boy, I've really stirred the pot this time!Objective things are not confined to materialism.Then YOU have a peculiar definition of what constitutes as "objective".ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)adj.1. Of or having to do with a material object.It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong.Yes it is. If there was nothing to label murder as wrong then how could it be "wrong"? This sort of judgment is entirely based on what one subjectively considers moral. We know, you know they are wrong.Actually, I don't think any of the things you listed are immoral. Don't put words in my mouth (or rather, project your prejudices onto me).So I suppose I'm proof that you are wrong. If these things are objectively wrong then I wouldn't be able to truthfully deny them. Walls are objective, I can't pass through them regardless of if I deny their objectivity. But, I can absolutely chose what I view as immoral - if anything. Therefore, morality is subjective.There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse).Again, an act isn't "immoral" until one labels it so. There's no objective immoral acts, it's purely an invention. Show me an act that is immoral without being labeled immoral. It's impossible, you will never succeed because for the act to be immoral you would FIRST have to label it as such. Understand?Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"Show me where exactly in my comment did I even once complain about the "evil" in the world.You can't, because I didn't. Stop straw-manning me, you're not fooling anyone.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

While the arguments you were disputing were silly to say morals don't exist in the mind, it's also silly to assume that because it's in the mind it doesn't have a distinct purpose to it. Pain, for example, is a mind trick. It lets us know that our body is being damaged and that we need to stop before we hurt ourselves. Who's to say that gut-churning feeling we get when we do something universally unacceptable isn't an instinct or a built-in self-preservation mechanism.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

it's also silly to assume that because it's in the mind it doesn't have a distinct purpose to it. Pain, for example, is a mind trick. It lets us know that our body is being damaged and that we need to stop before we hurt ourselves. Who's to say that gut-churning feeling we get when we do something universally unacceptable isn't an instinct or a built-in self-preservation mechanism.It doesn't matter if morals like pain have a utility in this debate. What matters is whether morals exist outside of our perceptions.They apparently do not.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

You're speaking of the conscience. The conscience isn't a natural thing found in the mind. It is a mechanism built into children by society. It is a means to control a child's rebellious behavior. If you never teach a child that thievery is "wrong", they will steal constantly as long as theft remains beneficial for them.Fear is a natural thing, you don't need to teach children fear. But, things like morals and conscience must be built in over time.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

The conscience isn't a natural thing found in the mind. It is a mechanism built into children by society.This isn't true in the slightest. Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization. Man is able to function outside of a state of nature because he holds certain moral precepts valid and worthwhile, and his appreciation of those precepts demonstrably evolved over thousands of years, leaving traces of that appreciation in varying degrees in less advanced species as well. Man's reticence to engage in acts of theft and murder developed as part of his evolution, not as some bullshit societal norm.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Jeez, you just seem to have it out for me. =pToo bad you're wrong... again...Conscionable behavior held dear by the majority of society is foundational to human civilization.Actually, people willing to live near each other is the foundation of civilization. Besides, what you just said shows conscience is a societal mechanism, not the contrary. XDMan is able to function outside of a state of natureThis too is testimony to conscience NOT being a natural thing... perhaps you should read your comments aloud to yourself before you post them from now on.=/and his appreciation of those precepts demonstrably evolved over thousands of years,This factually not true. Even in the time of Socrates you could find philosophers everywhere, each with a different philosophy on morals. There were utilitarians, ethical relativists, deontologicalists, etc. etc. etc.If you're talking about Lloyd DeMause's work on psycho-history then you must understand that he is studying the general insanity of society through the ages and this is what you are connecting to morality, general insanity.leaving traces of that appreciation in varying degrees in less advanced species as well. Irrelevant and factually not true. Chimps won't "feel bad" about stealing from another chimp. Baboons won't remorse when they murder another baboon in a fight.Besides, if this top-down hierarchy of conscience you're talking about is true then it means morals are NOT emergent and thus unnatural. Your statements are, once again, testimony to the unnatural mechanism of the conscience. XDMan's reticence to engage in acts of theft and murder developed as part of his evolution, not as some bullshit societal norm.Murder, perhaps, because NOT killing each other is needed for civilization. But, things like thievery are 100% based on society. Children steal all the time. they don't stop until the idea that thievery is wrong is instilled into them. Or, the child will, on their own, learn that stealing inspires a mistrust in his peers and ruins his reputation.That would stop the child from stealing and not once must he feel remorse for doing it. Morality just isn't a necessity for civilization. Side note: that AD you linked as "supporting evidence" means nothing as none of his arguments are outlined in the review (as one would expect) so it's impossible to get any context on the book content unless I buy it. Which I'm obviously NOT going to do. I doubt you've even read that book since it doesn't even go on sale until October... which means you actually had the nerve to link and ad promoting a book you haven't read just so you could seem like you had at least SOME evidence backing you.Besides, from what the reviews imply, this book set out to prove that one can a have a moral code without being in a religion. This in NO WAY stands antithesis to the conscience being a social construct. You're an idiot.Next time, link a study, NOT an ad.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience. You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much. Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality or morality. I don't know what dictionary you're using but from m-w.com here are some other sense of the adjective "objective": 1) b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>3) expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience.It doesn't matter how absurd an evil deed is, it remains evil only within our minds. There are no laws of nature that find it evil, and if we all suddenly vanished one day our sense of evil would vanish too.You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much. He wasn't saying that. He was stating that objectively what you just described isn't evil because evil isn't an objective thing.Objectivity isn't a prerequisite for outrage.I don't know what dictionary you're using but from m-w.com here are some other sense of the adjective "objective": Morality doesn't exist in any of those other meanings either.