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

I said the probability of my reasonings being unreasonable is low.Perhaps you should play the lottery. The probability of reason for the arguments you will post have no impact on the fact your previous posts lack reason. It may be that a survey of your posts would show that the probability of an unreasonable argument is quite high from you. Your IQ has no impact on the actual quality of any given actual argument you have posted. It does not mean my logic is 100% accurate, no, but it does mean my logic is least likely to be anything but. I have shown that the abandonment of axioms is the abandonment of logic itself. You haven't even attempted to argue your position on time. You failed to refute that time is axiomatic. Your IQ is irrelevant.I try and talk to them on a level of their comprehension.Syntax: the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.Almost everyone on this site can understand a well-formed sentence. It is similar to a physicist explaining advanced physics to an American elementary school. They will most likely have not a clue what he is talking about.You have 0 cause for assuming the level of intellect of any individual on this sight. If this is the analogy, then it is more like arguing with an elementary student, becoming embarrassed when you are loosing, and then abandoning the argument to explain to the student that his argument is false by virtue of the fact that you are smarter than him.If this next attempt fails to show you what I mean (a failure on my part), take it to your professor to explain it to you.1. Refusal to provide reasoned arguments on the basis of presumed higher intellectual ability is STILL a failure to provide a reasoned argument and suggest something OTHER than a higher intellectual ability.2. Probability has no impact on the past. Your arguments are either reasonable or not REGARDLESS of your IQ. Having reasonable arguments indicates a high IQ, not vice verse. Reversing this relationship indicates something other than a higher intellectual ability.3. If Einstein were here arguing with a low level accountant, he would probably loose. His IQ would be irrelevant. Hopefully he wouldn't say "I am so much smarter than you, that even though I am loosing this debate, I must still somehow be right."
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I have shown that the abandonment of axioms is the abandonment of logic itself. You haven't even attempted to argue your position on time. You failed to refute that time is axiomatic. Your IQ is irrelevant.Let me put this simply. Knowledgeability and IQ do not correlate. What I do with my knowledge (e.g. put together logically, reasonably, creatively, and intelligently) does correlate with my IQ. Now I am only saying this not because I do not know how to refute your position, I am saying I have not had the chance to look further into your position. I will not give a refutation composed of ignorance. My responses are based off of my knowledge, so if I need to refute something (with out it being unnecessarily flawed) then I will further research it.Your IQ has no impact on the actual quality of any given actual argument you have posted.If it composed of critically thought out reasonings then yes it does. IQ measures Critical thinking and reasoning. Now I understand if I misread/interpreted and posted a response, yes you would be correct. I will challenge you to debate someone with a 70 IQ and see there responses. I can assure you if they even understood your question they will probably respond with answers beyond reason and logic. The best philosophers that constructed near-indestructible arguments had extremely high IQs. To put together a profound argument requires critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. All of which an IQ measures.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

well formed does not mean they can understand well formed logically complex syntax. Sort of like old philosophy. A lot of it needs to be re-written because of logic complexity. Now of course Ivy League school philosophy profs force you to understand the complex logic and eventually you do! But everyone up here did/does take Ivy League philosophy courses.Prior to college I formulated my syntax like that anyway so it is hard to transition from writing/typing syntactically complex to syntactically simplistic.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

In reference to IQ correlation. If it composed of critically thought out reasonings then yes it does. If your posts are not composed critically or if they lack reason, you make another error by assuming the given argument must have been reasonable because your IQ is so high. The causation goes one way, not the other.The best philosophers that constructed near-indestructible arguments had extremely high IQs. To put together a profound argument requires critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. All of which an IQ measures.This is my point exactly. When you fail to put together a sound argument, on the grounds that I won't understand anyway, you fail to display what the IQ suggests. This failure is not reversed by your IQ, rather your honesty of your declared IQ is in question. This situation is made worse when you in fact make an argument that lacks reason only to claim that it probably actually is reasonable. Now of course Ivy League school philosophy profs force you to understand the complex logic and eventually you do! Fortunately for you, Ivy League schools put their courses out for free now. Given the type of person attracted to this kind of site, you are more likely to find people who have taken advantage of a free Ivy League education. well formed does not mean they can understand well formed logically complex syntax."I will not argue very well because if I did it would be so amazing and beyond you that you would not understand me."This is like claiming that I don't box because I'm better than Muhammad Ali. It's a very convenient statement that requires no punches from me.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You're right, that's a terrible way to explain 1+1=2 haha. I think that complex language structure is more problematic than the logic. Also, one could fail to understand esoteric language without having deficient intellectual capabilities.My point is I oversimplify to make debating fun and easy.I think this may have it's own set of problems. When something is actually oversimplified, part of the message may be lost. As a result, the audience can miss the context of your position.In the future I will refrain from stating your arguments are poor before considering as many possible contexts as I can. I will also aim at more precise language in order to avoid confusion.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

There is always some set of circumstances that makes something wrong.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

That's true, if by "something" you mean some moral action. An objective reality therefore, would need to be based on conceptual principles, rather than a rulebook of particulars. Also, since morality is meant for general living, objective morality would be put aside for situations that will never happen such as the trolley thought experiment, or you in a life raft. In these cases, just do whatever. Amorality should be left to areality situations.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

I am not sure what you are disputing.That's true, if by "something" you mean some moral action.It is true for anything that can be deemed right or wrong. Which is the subject of objective morality. Since we are discussing objective morality it is valid to discuss moral actions, so I don't see how this is any kind of objection.An objective reality therefore, would need to be based on conceptual principles, rather than a rulebook of particulars.These conceptual principles always require some kind of subjective reality.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

It's a dispute because I am arguing for an objective morality. I assumed you meant that the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in another. I agree with this part. "Good" and "bad" are only relevant to living thing (since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life). We can discover principles that can be objectively determined to aid the continuation or enhancement of human life. While it is true that the particular execution of a given moral principle would be subjective, the standard would still be objective.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

It's a dispute because I am arguing for an objective morality. I assumed you meant that the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in another. I agree with this part.If you agree with that, I don't understand how you can dispute me."Good" and "bad" are only relevant to living thing (since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life).That makes it not objective right off the bat. We can discover principles that can be objectively determined to aid the continuation or enhancement of human life.There is always a conflict. Punishment doesn't enhance someones life, but it must be done in certain circumstances. It is subjective.While it is true that the particular execution of a given moral principle would be subjective, the standard would still be objective.If it is too vague to execute at an objective level is it really objective?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

That makes it not objective right off the bat.Living things exist, objectively speaking. Life is the only thing that won't necessarily continue automatically. Good and bad things being relevant to only living things is a statement of the nature of life. A thing having a nature that is different from the nature of something else, does not make it subjective. A comet, in proximity to a star, has a tail. That's part of it's nature. A planet does not. Comet tails are not subjective. Neither is life's values. Both are inherent in the things nature.I know there is conflict with morality. There is also quite a bit of subjectivity. Some moral ideas are not that vague, and as such they are fairly common across cultures. But the vagueness (lack of clarity) of the subject as a whole is not a refutation of objectivity, but rather a criticism of our lack of inquiry and study.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

the same action deemed moral in one case would be wrong in anotherI should clarify this. A dictate of specific actions would not be a moral code for the reason you mentioned. An objective morality based on principles would lead to different actions depending on the context. Example:The moral principle of respect for the human life stemming from respect for your own life will lead you to not kill people on a regular basis. In the context of being attacked however, it will lead you to kill the attacker out of respect for your own life. These opposite actions are based on the same principle.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

(since the fundamental concern is with continued or enhanced life). What non-objective moral action can prevent life. Just try and think of a world where you ideology on morals does not exist. Life will still continue. Sex is not a moral. Instinctual protection of a baby is not a moral. A child being belligerent and barbaric (assuming the child has no moral guidance) would not guarantee failure of survival. So how are objective morals a necessity for survival? Specifically name one objective moral.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I suppose the key would be "enhanced". And by life I should have been more specific, I was referring to human life. Morality is a code of conduct, and we need this to survive since we lack instincts. Consider that "adherence to rationality" is a code of conduct. Since the goal of the living human is continued and enhanced life, you need to discover what ever conduct best serves this purpose. There will be certain principles of conduct that can be universally applied to each human being to serve their goal in living.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Morality is a code of conduct, and we need this to survive since we lack instincts.No, it is not. As I've said before, animals do not have morals. They survive. Before morals were discovered by humans, or Homo-Erectus and so on, we survived just fine. And, if morality were to be eradicated, humans still have survival instincts. Also, humans have instinctual habits of reproducing. It might not be as clear right now, but it is still there seeing as how, before the introduction of morals, our ancestors reproduced just fine.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Morality is a code of conduct. Reply No, it is not.It most certainly is. All morality is a code of conduct, not all codes of conduct qualify as morality. If any given code of conduct is fully accepted and internalized, it becomes morality. People will acquire feelings of moral outrage if their given code of conduct is ignored or improperly adhered to. Different people have different overall codes, hence moral subjectivity. The idea of an objective morality is that you determine what values are required by all humans for living, determine what principles of action are best for achieving said values, then internalize these given principles. Before morals were discovered by humans...we survived just fine.Any group will develop a code of conduct (whether explicit or implicit) and it will be enforced by the group. The emotional attachment that we have to our codes of conduct is what makes morals seem different than any given moral code. I can't prove it, but from my understanding of groups as stated above, humans have never been without some code of conduct.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Morality exists as a form of value judgement and ascription. It is premised upon the subjective perception that value itself exists objectively, which it does not. "Good" and "bad" are just ideas that we made up to understand our world and to codify our interactions. They do not actually exist.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Values are those for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep. Only and all living things value. If living things exist objectively, and they have values, then values exist objectively. "Good" and "bad" applies to the living, just like values. "Good" and "bad" things are those which "aid" or "threaten" the life respectively. Regardless of what I believe is good or bad, there are some things that actually objectively are.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Values are those for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep.Values are about far more than motivators of action towards gaining and retaining. They are motivators that ascribe an abstract notion of "good" and "bad" to the equation. Only and all living things value.Not all living things value. A snail does not value; it just does.  If living things exist objectively, and they have values, then values exist objectively. If living things exist objectively, and they think unicorns are real, that does not mean the unicorn exists objectively. Only the subjective idea of the unicorn exists objectively. Now, simply insert morality/value for unicorn and perhaps you grasp the concept. There is a difference between an idea occurring objectively, and that idea representing something that objectively exists itself. "Good" and "bad" applies to the living, just like values. "Good" and "bad" things are those which "aid" or "threaten" the life respectively. Regardless of what I believe is good or bad, there are some things that actually objectively are.The problem with words like "good" and "bad" is that they so intermingle subjective value judgements with objective truth that one cannot use them strictly to reference what is objectively (dis)advantageous. If we are discussing (dis)advantage or harm/benefit, then we should use the language that discusses that explicitly - (dis)advantage and harm/benefit. To say that a disadvantage/advantage is bad/good attaches an additional, subjective value statement onto the objective observation. Consequentially, you end up saying things like "there are some things that actually objectively are" good or bad... instead of simply observing what actually is objectively (dis)advantageous from the offset. Why should we cling to a moral value system that is so inherently imprecise, and not abandon it instead for a direct, amoral consideration of (dis)advantage?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Concerning the definition of value, I am arguing it elsewhere in this debate. See other.Mammals have nerves. These nerves allow us to feel pain. The is a property of mammals. The avoidance of pain is an objective value even though the experience of pain is subjective. Just as "red" creates a subjective qualia, it objectively exists (as a position on the light spectrum). Pain is different from a unicorn the same way that values are. Your argument for creating a system based consideration of (dis)advantage wouldn't keep out words like good and bad. If your system worked, it would be internalized and felt. People would have a subjective experience and call it good if it did what it's supposed to. Then they would call it morality. The consideration of advantage, benefit, etc would have to be based on fundamental human values if advantage is to mean anything.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Concerning the definition of value, I am arguing it elsewhere in this debate. See other.Not with me you are not, and as stated in my other response to you I am not going to waste my time wading through every post on this debate looking for it. You can make it in direct, contextual rebuttal to me or you can expect me not to factor into our debate.Mammals have nerves. These nerves allow us to feel pain. The is a property of mammals. The avoidance of pain is an objective value even though the experience of pain is subjective. Just as "red" creates a subjective qualia, it objectively exists (as a position on the light spectrum). Pain is different from a unicorn the same way that values are. The avoidance of pain is not an objective value, but rather an objective reality. While the experience of pain (i.e. our perception of its severity) is subjective, pain itself is not as it can be externally identified and observed through scientific means. "Red" does not exist as an objective idea; it is a subjective descriptor projected onto the objective phenomenon that we describe as "red". The idea of "red" exists only in our minds, whereas the phenomenon it describes exists objectively. Even if you were right about pain and "red", observations specific to those phenomenon cannot be extrapolated from in defense of your stance on values. You need to prove that values themselves exist as more than ideas, which you have not yet done.Your argument for creating a system based consideration of (dis)advantage wouldn't keep out words like good and bad. If your system worked, it would be internalized and felt. People would have a subjective experience and call it good if it did what it's supposed to. Then they would call it morality. The consideration of advantage, benefit, etc would have to be based on fundamental human values if advantage is to mean anything.I am not arguing that we actually create this system, in large part because I do not think most people capable of processing and internalizing it. The psychological limits of (other) human beings to grasp the distinction between objective reality and subjective value projection in no way disproves that the distinction actually exists. Most people used to be incapable of thinking that Earth revolved around the sun, but that did not make that fact less true. You have not actually refuted my analysis, only demonstrated that it may be impracticable which was never a factor I relied on in advancing my rationale.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

My definition of value is "that for which one takes action to gain and/or to keep".It works perfectly well with other dictionary definitions. The only thing it lacks is an aspect of consciousness which everyone here seems to think it needs. That something is "worth" something, or that it is "important" doesn't mean that fact must be known to the entity it is important to.The avoidance of pain is not an objective value, but rather an objective reality.You need to prove that values themselves exist as more than ideas, which you have not yet done.People value avoiding pain more than keeping secrets, this the idea behind torture. Even if you don't accept my definition, would you say that the rest of my position logically follows from that definition? How might I prove that my definition is valid? Dictionaries have multiple definitions and mine perfectly fits with several of them. How shall I prove semantics?I am not arguing that we actually create this system, in large part because I do not think most people capable of processing and internalizing it. If they internalized it they would call it good and bad and you would call it subjective. I'm not refuting your idea for a system, I'm just saying they would call it morality. If your system is based on objective reality, then it may be similar to what I am calling objective morality.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

The problem I have with your definition of value is that it is not a definition of moral value. I have never seen any definition of moral values which is so strictly utilitarian as yours. To construct a "morality" around an amoral definition of value is not really constructing a morality at all; it neglects the aspect of subjective judgement that is by definition innate to morality.The only way people could actually internalize my system would be through a rejection of the concepts of "good" and "bad"; that most people would revert to understanding my system in terms of "good" and "bad" is indicative of their incapacity to engage that process of rejection (and thus they would not actually be referring to my system at all). I concur that our systems are not especially divergent. I consider the primary difference to be that I actively avoid expressing my system in terms of dominant moral language. What you refer to as the value of life or the value of pain avoidance, I would refer to as the instinct for life or pain aversion. Self-preservation and all that stems from it is not a value, but an empirical reality. The end remains the same not because it should but quite simply because it is; and that moral "should" - that egotistical belief in some state of "right" from which stems our sense of entitled vanity - would no longer be a part of the process.