azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

is communism good it sounds virtuous everyone working for the benefit of society.all posesion is considered theft and we all take on the same responsibility for the world no more corporate jets for the robber barons no more stock market no more bonuses . but here is the problem ok humans have greed deal with it.if we tear down all forms of class what do you have well the thugs take over becUAse when the government or or whoever comes around wanting the weapons there will be people will say no because there is another human trait that will not work with communism fear. so the fear and greed will bread a class of thugs who will go around collecting possesions because when the fabric of our existance since the begining of time is unraveled there will be chaos because of the fear and greed and the thugs will be the oportunists and will use the new structure of government which is total control of our lives which is said to be for our benefit to rule us new and old peasants. one thing stays the same under communism poverty and class structure. there will be a aristocratic class that rises except they are in the government because that is where the money goes and because of greed and fear for their own existance the thugs will be the ones who gravitate to those posts so people will see that this new society doesnt work when the production that used to exist comes to a halt because hey whats the point of working when you dont have to u can be a recipiant of the new government give aways so there will be a resistance and the thugs which are in the government which has the weapons which the working class turned in for bread and shelter will now be turned on the workers to supress them into submission......................................................................boy doesnt that just sound utopic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and if im wrong show me where in history that when marxism has been installed it has turned out and different then the senario i just explained
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: theoretically good

In theory, yes. Everyone is equal. It just can't work out that way. Most of the time people will be killed by the bushels because everyone wants to be different. Russia today is so paranoid that they just stay isolated until they are threaten and jump at anyone. Russia is soo poor today because nothing worked out for them. The farms just downgraded their economy and the wealthier people got angry and decided to start riots and revolts. Many people were killed in Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea, and about every communist country.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

It doesn't matter as much what type of government you live in as what type of leaders you have. If you are democratic, you need a proper leader; if you are communist, you need a good leader (or none at all). So, in the end, there are many ways to rule a country but it is up to the leader to use the method in the right way - for the benefit of each individual. :)
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

I'm somewhat split on this, but I'm going with bad. Now YES communism can be seen as very good, and I do agree that it's ideology and concept are concrete, and ultimately fight for the "greater good" of humanity. However getting there is a whole different matter, as a country must go through a ridiculous amount of X factors to be able to apply communism properly. Factors such as human emotion can't be put into the calculation because they're variable and thus are inconsistent, something that communism can not be. As someone said earlier, it overlooks human nature. To teach a people how to behave in a communist world we must go back to basics. Wipe humanity clean and restart. This is evidently not a good thing. What we have seen with communism is power mad men who were once good and honest people corrupted beyond human boundaries in their search for power.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

NOOOOOOOO! communism is POOP! I mean, they tell you exactly what to do!! You have no control over yourself!! they tell you exactly what to do with your life! you have no SAY in how to live your own life!
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Authoritarian Communism does, sure, but Marxist Communism doesn't.In fact, Marxist Communism would, theoretically (since Marxist Communism hasn't ever actually been tried for obvious reasons) give you greater negative freedom than almost every Western country today.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

with communism no one can break the mold. no-one can be different or a higher status than others. even if you are a brilliant mind that deserves the acknowledgment all your brilliance and hard work gets little to no recognition and you get the same amount of money as someone who has never worked in their life.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?There's no need to bring religion in to the mix. Evolution perfectly explains it. Groups of people that worked together stood a better chance of survival than groups that murdered each other (hyberbole for emphasis).2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?Environment and education certainly has an impact, but it's not the only factor.3. What is its source? Where does it come from?As stated above, a mix of nature (genes, evolution) and nuture (environment, education).4. What is its purpose?Survival in the form of a stable society.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Evolution does not decide morals. Evolution doesn't tell us to not piss on the street or not. Evolution doesn't decide our actions at all, actually. Evolution is merely the course of life. If you're thinking survival of the fittest (Natural Selection weeding out the weak and having the strong reproduce) that still doesn't decide on morals. If anything, morals conflict with Natural Selection for they create sympathy and empathy for a lesser kind (the poor and sick). Even ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.Evolution has NOTHING to do with morals and ethics.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: YES

ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.The fittest is not always an individual; e.g. humans who are able to coordinate with other humans are more successful in hunting.If a human steals from another and is shunned from the group, their chances for survival/procreation are diminished.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

There is a problem with the evolutionary ethics. That is, there are other elements of morality that cannot be explained in this way.Rebuttal:I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people. 1. According to the evolutionary ethics, those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. It is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless. But...........2. Morals appear to have a hierarchy property. There always seems to be a greater good or lesser evil to choose between. In this case, the passengers of flight 93 is a perfect example of that. Hijacking was wrong, but to hijack a plane for the purpose of killing thousands is a far more egregious wrong. It could not have been just "opinions" that prompted them to do that. Certainly not the "genes" that evolution described as "selfish". There is great agreement on moral issues and one of them is "self-sacrifice". If that was not the case, than why where they honored with a memorial, etc.? Conclusion: There is a great moral agreement that transcends time and culture for "self-less" and that selfish are frowned upon. Hence, evolutionary ethics does not reflect reality. Even Richard Dawkins, the foremost advocate of evolution theory, recognize this in his book, "the Selfish Gene". Read his own words:“My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3]
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people.ORThey decided to fight because after talking to their relatives, it became apparent that if they did nothing they would die anyway. In which case, it was their self preservation (or selfish-gene if you like) that prompted the fight, and not some sense of "sacrifice for the greater good".
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"They decided to fight because after talking to their relatives, it became apparent that if they did nothing they would die anyway. In which case, it was their self preservation (or selfish-gene if you like) that prompted the fight, and not some sense of "sacrifice for the greater good".Rebuttal:It really does not satisfy the explanation for their decision to commit selfless " sacrifice for the greater good". Granted, that we have the natural instinct of self-preservation. There is a difference between the feeling, a desire to help (herd instinct, if you will) and the feeling that whether you "ought" to help whether you want to or not. In the case of the flight 93 passengers, they would probably feel two desires--the desire to help (due to herd instinct) and the other a desire to keep out of danger. Yet, they probably felt another (independent) feeling in addition to these two impulses. That is, a third thing which tells you that you "ought" to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to do nothing (run away). Therefore, this third thing that judges between the two instincts can not be itself either of them.Conclusion: The evolution ethics still does not satisfy because of its shortcomings. It literally denies what is self-evident to every individual no matter their culture or time.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

humans have avery complicated set of ethics, however, evolution can fully explain them. we were far more successful hunters when working in teams than not, but we would still be competing for resources with other groups. This explains why we still have complex drives for cooperation and competition that we still see today.I don't believe there would be biblical morals that would support competitive nature of man. we are not to be covetous so the capitalistic drive would be unwarranted. Love thy neighbor as thyself etc would mean we should not have borders or compete over resources etc.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"humans have avery complicated set of ethics, however, evolution can fully explain them"1. Can you explain the "Evolution Moral Position" in order to better understand your argument? That is, if there is such a position. I already posted my position and defined it, where is yours? "them. we were far more successful hunters when working in teams than not, but we would still be competing for resources with other groups. This explains why we still have complex drives for cooperation and competition that we still see today. I don't believe there would be biblical morals that would support competitive nature of man. we are not to be covetous so the capitalistic drive would be unwarranted. Love thy neighbor as thyself etc would mean we should not have borders or compete over resources etc."1. I am still waiting for you to post the "Evolution Moral Position" in order to better understand your argument. Define.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

i think you are right in terms of where that internal 'feeling' comes from, but in terms of universality - i think the question's author means something more like we all have the same feeling rather than all have a feeling. In that respect, I would have to disagree with you that the answer is true. I think the answers would be different based on the evolution of that culture and even that person.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

i got nothing to support my oppinion except that i have reared myself from the age of 16. what my parents taught me is irrellevent to what i KNOW is wrong or right.so yes we all have that inner sense of what is morrally wrong or right.minus wat we choose to think is wrong or right.However im sure there are those that are de-sensetized to feeling that inner sense of moral ........................darn, this is a headtap.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Just because your parents did not have an influence on you after 16 does not mean that their influence is irrelevant to your perceptual biases. Firstly, Something like the distinction between right and wrong is learned much earlier than age 16, as soon as you start experiencing punishments and rewards from parents and society based on your actions. Secondly, the dualistic bifurcation of right and wrong is so deeply embedded in our culture, and even in our language, that it would be almost impossible for you to avoid internalizing this basic schema, regardless of how you were raised.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

ok, i said i didnt know ,so you sound smart ,help me understand what i said wrong. if i was to have had no moral concience than i would have seen fit to have followed in my mothers footsteps...i didnt...some areas i regret(my mum is a smart woman)...other areas my mum has finally seen the err of her ways, just as i have grown i have seen the err of my ways .....im still far off being perfect but between my mother and i ,we are sorting our differences.From the age off 11-16 i ran away 15 times.YES when i was a little girl i thought the world of my mum,she taught me how to lie in the most unfit areas of life...you are right she did have an influence on my child....AND THIS IS WHY.....when my child tells me something, i listen.......when my child tells me they are not happy ,i ask why...when my child asks for the truth,i tell them the truth.,when my child feels threatened, i ask why ,when my child tells me why, i do something about it ,when my goes missing ,i look for my child ....when my child tells me they love me i tell them i love you back..etc ....why?............... because she didnt....and i know where that can lead a child...........so yes i guess you are right, i think.I DONT KNOW..........sorry DO YOU REALISE HOW EASILY A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN BE BROUGHT BY A PEODOPHILE AND HOW A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN ALSO BE THAT UNINPORTANT TO ITS PARENT THAT THE PARENT COULDNT GIVE A HOOT SO LONG AS ITS NOT CAUSING A FUSS.DO YOU KNOW WHAT GROOMING IS DO YOU KNOW WHAT ABUSE OF INNOCENCE CAN DO TO A CHILD .MENTALLY PHYSICALLY ETC AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.DO YOU KNOW HOW UNGUIDED A CHILD CAN BE WHEN EVEN MEMBERS OF LAW TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INNOCENCE..........Bifurcation ?...well i got out my dictionary and i checked it out ,im sorry but i dont understand.All i know is im not like 80% of the people ive met. I am glad.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

i think you are supporting the idea that you learned your morals. If your experience of what your parents did was negative, you would be very likely to find flaws in their beliefs in an effort to do better. that is exactly how the other side is saying that morals are developed. I (based on my personal experience) can definitely feel for you, but I don't think it means that there is a universal moral law.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I'm sorry to hear you had a rough time as a kid. I'm glad you have been able to turn the experience into something positive in raising your own child. I was just trying to argue that by the time you had reached age 16, you probably already had learned to look at the world in terms of "good" and "bad". This message is a deep part of our culture. If you look you can see that it is pervasive in every aspect of the media and is implicit in our laws, and especially in our education. I think living in this culture we cannot help but learn to look at things through this good/evil lens. This is not the case in all cultures. For example, Far-eastern ethical systems such as Buddhism and Hinduism explicitly state that our perceptions of good and evil are only illusions. To them, good and evil are only relative, and neither is preferred over the other.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

yeh true and ive met quite a few kids from that cult.................................... ure who can just as easily agree with me . If you would like me to fill you in on everything well im sorry but i didnt come here to give a hard luck story and i dont need pity....im one of the more unique cases people dont hear about ,......but you know what ...you know how there is a "gaydar" well im lucky ,i have many radars.....and anger and care and the courage to stop fukd morals in their track.....Just because a child is led to believe an adults oppinion is correct morally, does not make it so.....
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

whoever just downvoted me,....... thats fine... but can i point out that to dispute me is pointless ......as i said right from the start, ..... "I GOT NO PROOF" ....so now go ahead,.. tell me how im wrong i am for my ACTUAL EXPERIENCES....or go pick at someone who claims to have proof ...because i havent.... AS i HAVE SAID....but hey i do care about my points(NOW) because if i win a prize here on CD im donating them to the kids .....THEY DESERVE SOMETHING FOR BEING LED INTO THIS DEFILED PLAYGROUND!
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I JUST FOUND THIS.... "HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS is just about the last surviving mystery.A mystery is a phenomenon that people dont know how to think about-yet.There has been other great mysteries:the mystery of the origin of the universe,the mystery of life and reproduction,the mystery of the design to be found in nature,the mysteries of time,space,and gravity.These were not just areas of scientific ignorance,but of utter bafflement and wonder.We do not yet have all the answers to any of the questions of cosmology and particle physics,molecular genetics and evolutionary theory,but we do know how to think about them.....With consciousness,however,we are still in a terrible muddle.Consciousness stands alone today as a topic that often leaves even the most sophisticated of thinkers tongue-tied and confused.And as with all the earlier mysteries,there are many who insist-and hope-that there will never be a demystification of consciousness" Daniel.C.Dennett,Consciousness Explained,1991
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

i like the quote but it does not seem to support or dispute either side of the UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW question.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: NO

I guess not ....what would i know....nothing apparrently............I am not looking for your pity....As for universal moral law , i happen to agree with alot of what you have said...w/e. Thanks.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"These were not just areas of scientific ignorance, but of utter bafflement and wonder"This specific portion I found very interesting because it is an admission of the consciouness of being outside the realm of science. Science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Science can not answer all questions. It seem that many do not understand that it is not a scientific question.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

our sense of morality does not come from our parents alone, but from the totality of our nature and nurture. our biology and evolution in addition to our experience in society of appropriate behaviour.if this consciousness was god-given, then anyone of sufficient devoutness to the same god would get the same answer to complex moral questions
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I'm thinking there is. It probably has something to do with how you're raised-- (naturally, our instincts tell us not to share and to be competitive and nasty and such, so get along [survival instincts])-- but, there are cases where someone who's raised you or someone who you think knows the right thing to do is WRONG, and you can just feel in your heart that they're wrong. So maybe it's an abstract feeling of divine right and wrong? I'm not a die-hard religious person, but I do believe that there is some consciencious gut feeling in all of us.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Ahhhh, intesrting ,yeah? It is self-evident when something is right or wrong. You don't need to gather information or use reason. You KNOW. The thing is,....when a person has a choice to make...there are two choices, but......when there is another (independent) thing that judges between both and tells you to choose one over the other, it does not come across as an private, personal decision, or an opinion. It contains a sense of obligation and oughtness. It is a prescription for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. But, we have a choice to obey or disobey this Universal Moral Law. I submit Isasshellbell, that somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting to us, that is behind the Moral Law.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

it is not always evident whether something is right or wrong and there are not always 2 choices. e.g. How should the US war in Afghanistan be waged? there are hundreds of possible answers the people of equal consciousness could disagree on
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"it is not always evident whether something is right or wrong and there are not always 2 choices. e.g."How should the US war in Afghanistan be waged? there are hundreds of possible answers the people of equal consciousness could disagree on"1. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular situation. If anything, the dilemma actually proves for-absolute morality. How? Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative! The very reason we struggle with the dilemma is because we know how valuable life is. Ponder on this, while people may get morality wrong in complicated situations, they don't get it wrong on the basics. Example: A simple moral question such as "Is murder justified?" proves that at least one law of morality exists (i.e. don't murder). If just one moral obligation exists (such as don't murder, or don't rape, or don't torture babies), then the Moral Law exists. If the Moral Law exists, then so does the Moral Law Giver.