azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: YES

This is a copied response to another question I answered.Lets start with this. To assert that something is true is to say that something is definite, unchanging, or completely self-consistant. So, to ask the question is there a universal truth is really asking is there something in the universe that is true. To answer this question we must not accept any bias whether it is religious or none religious. So i our assumtion is that anything is possible but then if anything is possible we also assume the possiblity that nothing is possible. Ultimately this statement cannot be true because if anything is possible that would mean it is possible for something and nothing to be possible at the same time which clearly contradict the whole idea in its' self. The answer is that only somethings are possible because nothing cannot exist no matter how you try to make sense of the idea its' just simply impossible. So there you have the final answer to your question. Only something can exist and nothing cannot that is a universal truth. So universal truths do exist.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: YES

I just one agruement to make. HOW DO WE KNOW EVIL ACTUALLY EXIST!!!!!Because this is the whole point of this agruement. Who's right and who wrong. At different instances what could be view as right or wrong depends totally on the sistuition. So if morality is subjective because it depends on the nature of the sistuition and the beliefs of the people in the enviroment who is to say what is right or wrong. Just about every culture and people have ideas about what is good or bad but it does necessarly make their ideas right. So this whole agruement is really about peoples perception, points of view, and conscious expression. Ultimately since everybody has a point of view or degree of self-express and no degree of subjection can be applied to either it then becomes a universal moral that freedom of a people is to be respected as long it does impede or restrict the freedom of others, their enviroment, and their own.THIS CONVERSATION IS DONE. END OF STORY THE YES SIDE WINS.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: YES

WAIT A MINUTE THIS AGRUEMENT STIILL GOING ON I THOUGHT I SAY IT WAS OVER.( I am joking people relax)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: NO

You don't decide when a debate/argument ends...
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

No, there is no Universal Moral Law.Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong. Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed. Is it wrong? Well, by human standard it is, but at a Universal standard what we do doesn't matter.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"No, there is no Universal Moral Law"Okay, so if there is no moral point of reference, than that means what you think is no more right or wrong than what I think, right?"Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong"Than I have to ask where did those human beings get those morals from to determine what is right and wrong? How do they know what is crooked unless they know what is straight? Because from what you are telling me they seem to be appealing to some kind of standard. So than by who's standard (if theirs than I have to ask where did they get theirs from?) are they measuring and comparing to? Right? "Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed"Okay, so than, where does this "knowing" come from? That is, the source of this knowledge? Would you agree or disagree than that "stealing, murder, etc." are examples of what people in differant time and cultures do not admire? Granted, people "know" this law, but they do not always obey. Yet, the underlining point is that, in differant time and culture, it is not admired.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

1. Exactly, my morals are subjective to your morals. 2. I'm not explaining the origin or morals, but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason.3. Ethics, as I said, are built on conflicting with others. We have no moral obligation to feel that an action is right or wrong, but civilization realizes that in order to thrive, they must make sure that one doesn't hurt the other. The Social Contract. If you're wondering where our ability to critically think comes from, the answer doesn't lye within Moral Law, it lies within evolution or something deeper. But no one knows how humans have the intellectual capacity that they do... we just do.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

1. Let me ask another way, if it is not true for you is not true for everybody?2. “I'm not explaining the origin or morals, but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason”a. “I'm not explaining the origin or morals"Science and reason can not answer both what “ought” to happen and the proposition of morality. Science can only tell you what would probably happen where as reason helps us recognize contradictions. As an agnostic, you are only relying on either or both., which is why you can not give an answer. Therefore, you did just what T.H. Huxley, a British Biologist, suggested, “to follow reason “as far as it can take you”; but then, when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge” "agnosticism." (Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 26 Nov. 2009 .)Here is a question for you: Torturing babies for fun is wrong. Agree or disagree?b. …“but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason”The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes. Example: Let us take on abortion. The pro-life position argues that it is wrong to take a life of an innocent human being. The pro-choice position actually agrees with the pro-life position on this essential point. What is the differance than? Pro-choice that does not agree that the fetus or the embryo is a human being. The debate is factual. If the question is answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussion, and abortion either is recognized as morally neutral, completely acceptable procedure, or as murder. Your just going by how cultures behave, which is just that, observation and nothing more. Therefore, these observations are simply statements of facts. Morals are not the descriptions of the way things are. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says , “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral statement. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would make be making a moral claim.3. "Ethics, as I said, are built on conflicting with others. We have no moral obligation to feel that an action is right or wrong, but civilization realizes that in order to thrive, they must make sure that one doesn't hurt the other. The Social Contract. If you're wondering where our ability to critically think comes from, the answer doesn't lye within Moral Law, it lies within evolution or something deeper. But no one knows how humans have the intellectual capacity that they do... we just do"3. Question: Are you suggesting than that society decides what is right and wrong?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I'm gonna skip the first few and answer the last question, since it basically sums everything up:Are you suggesting than that society decides what is right and wrong?Yes. Universally, there is no right and wrong. Society basically makes it up. side note: torturing babies is unethical because it is an action conflicting with an individual. Morals have to do with actions that are considered obscene or wrong for reasons illogical (body piercings, gay marriage, etc.)Anyway, my whole point lies on that answer that I put up. Morals don't exist other than in our heads. They're merely guidelines that civilizations made up. And my comment on the origins or morals was really just that I don't know why exactly it's considered wrong to have oral sex or put your elbows on the table. Civilizations just come about those morals for one reason or another.As an agnostic, I don't know the origins of the Universe or if there's a God or not. What I do know is that morals are subjective, and that's it.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

1. "Yes. Universally, there is no right and wrong. Society basically makes it up"If that is true, if society defines morality, then a person who protests against the law of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. A perfect example of what a society would look like, would be that of Germany in the 1930's and 40's. They passed a law stating that it was illegal to have blue eyes and the penalty for having blue eyes is death. Because they adopted that philosophy, millions of Jews were slaughtered! Why? Because the law was the law; by definition it was "moral". What grounds did the Jews had when they critique the German society??? The Nazis that were tried in Nuremberg, their defense was "It couldn't have been wrong, it was the law", they said. "We were following orders". Even if society were to change a law, it would not change from immoral to moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from rule to another. It would simply be different, not better or worse. You might as well call Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, etc. one of the worst criminals! They basically pointed to what they saw wrong in society and that it should be changed, that it ought not be that way. It just shows how bankrupt that view is. 2. "torturing babies is unethical because it is an action conflicting with an individual. Morals have to do with actions that are considered obscene or wrong for reasons illogical (body piercings, gay marriage, etc.)"Unpleasant position to having to argue against it right? Because you can not say it is wrong and be consistent.3. I am referring to the method that an agnostic would use for the purpose of obtaining knowledge. Reason can only helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions. Therefore, it can not be derived from reason. The one way we come to moral knowledge is directly. That is, we know it through intuition. Why? Because some things are only known in themselves. There is no need for investigation of facts or reasoning is required.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

None of this proves for there to be a Universal Moral Law. Really, you didn't even help your argument by bringing up the holocaust. The Nazis found it immoral for one to be a jew. They found it immoral to have relations with a jew. If morals were Universal, where was Hitler's intuition?Morals are made up. That's it. We can't prove right from wrong, we just come up with agreements, just how the Nazis did.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"The Nazis found it immoral for one to be a jew. They found it immoral to have relations with a jew"Conventionalism is about power, not morality. Which ever the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Forcing into submission those who woud oppose them, coventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. Conventionalism: a view that each society decides what is right and wrong. That is, it claims that there is right and wrong , but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal. The Germany of the 1930's-40's clearly shows what that kind of society would look like. Theodore Schick Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College, argued that, "If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with one's culture and be right. Social reformers couldn't claim that a socially approved practice is wrong because if, society approves of it, it must be right. If society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply mistaken. Thus cultural relativism would have us believe that William Lloyd Garrison advocated an immoral position when he advocated the abolition of slavery. But this is not what we believe. We believe that the practice of slavery was wrong even though our culture approved of it. Since cultures are not morally infallible - since they can sanction immoral practices - cultural relativism cannot be correct" (Article Title: Is Morality a Matter of Taste? Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely 'Subjective.'. Contributors: Theodore Schick Jr. - author. Magazine Title: Free Inquiry. Volume: 18. Issue: 4. Publication Date: Fall 1998. Page Number: 32+. COPYRIGHT 1998 Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group)"If morals were Universal, where was Hitler's intuition?"1. If all truth is relative, (if the answer is yes), then what are we to do with that statement itself, since it would be universally true?2. And if it is not true for everybody, then why is the relativist pushing his morality on other people?The fact is thepyg, I challenged you to take on this question: "Toturing babies for fun is wrong" ....If you do not believe that this statement is true, the burden of proof is on you to provide a counterexample. If you are unable to do so - if you cannot cite a situation in which toturing babies for fun is right- then your claim that it is true is irrational, for you have no good reason to make it. Secondly, you deliberately stated you wanted to skip other things I mentioned..."the factual debates" part. You didn't challeneged, you clearly stated you wanted to skip it. If you can't do these things, you weakened your own argument.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

There is no universal moral law. First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels. Even if you take it to the most basic of morals such as killing others, there are still cannibal tribes in some parts of Africa. Secondly, what would this moral law state? We need more specifics.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.The example I provided goes against the most basic of morals agreed upon. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism. Therefore, morals are all relative.All morals come from cultural and social background. There are no morals that exist in EVERY person or EVERY culture in the world. Therefore, there is no universal moral.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

A Common Core of Moral Values--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  There does appear to be significant evidence for a common core of ‘moral’ values across human societies. E.g., if you look at moral codes from widely separated cultures and time-frames, such as those listed below, we do see a significant core of commonality. ancient Jews/ Israelites, the teachings of Jesus the Christ, the Roman Empire’s system of justice, the moral codes of Ancient Mesopotamia, the moral codes in ancient China, the moral codes in ancient India, the moral codes in ancient European societies, the teachings of individuals recognized as great moral leaders in various societies through the ages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Standards--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  For instance, the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) hold up standards that we should strive to be fair in our dealings with one another, particularly with those in our society, we should not cause unnecessary harm to others in our society, we should be respectful of others in our society, particularly of our parents and other elders, we should be honest, in particular with members of our society, we should be responsible for our actions, we should be considerate of the well-being and happiness of others, in particular of those we are responsible for. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Standards II--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  And being more specific, the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) hold up standards such as do not kill innocent humans; definitions of ‘innocent’ can differ but do have a common core, do not indulge in sexual relations with your daughter or son or infant or mother or father, do not sexually molest your children, do not steal from each other in your society do not lie about each other in your society, do not indulge in casual cannibalism of others in your society, do not indulge in casual physical torture of others in your society etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Values--------------------------------------------------------------------------------  And the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) would agree that we should be willing to protect our families and children from others who might harm them.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"The example I provided goes against the most basic of morals agreed upon. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism. Therefore, morals are all relative""All morals come from cultural and social background. There are no morals that exist in EVERY person or EVERY culture in the world. Therefore, there is no universal moral"Okay, let us go over it again. Schick argued that, "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made. The formula for a moral judgment, then, can be expressed as follows: Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment Some anthropologists believe that this is often the case. Solomon Asch writes: It has been customary to hold that diverse evaluations of the same act are automatic evidence for the presence of different principles of evaluation. The preceding examples point to an error in this interpretation. Indeed, an examination of the relational factors point to the operation of constant principles in situations that differ in concrete details. . . . Anthropological evidence does not furnish proof of relativism. We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue. It seems rather that the relations between valuation and meaning are invariant.(2) According to Asch, people in different cultures arrive at different moral judgments, not because they have different views about the nature of morality, but because they have different views about the nature of reality"(Theodore Schick, Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College and coauthor (with Lewis Vaughn) of How to Think about Weird Things (Mayfield, 1995) and Doing Philosophy: An Introduction Through Thought Experiments (Mayfield, 1999). Note: Schick quotes, Solomon Asch, a Social Psychologist: " Social Psychology, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.Therefore, the very fact that there is a differance of arrival of moral judgements in different cultures proves otherwise, that it is simply, "...because they have different views about the nature of reality (Schick).
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

the bible says women are far inferior to man and should defer decision making etc to the man should not be allowed to speak in church or teach the bible. how then did we come to the conclusion that women should be allowed to vote? because a sufficient number of people put sufficient pressure on society - the cost of jailing women who disobeyed, educated women showing that they knew more than many men who were allowed to vote, women putting pressure on their spouses at home etc. - our morals changed. based on enough people coming to the logical conclusion that allowing them to vote was less bad than not letting them vote. Slavery and many other things allowed in the bible (yes, even the new testament - see 1st Timothy) have undergone similar transitions. often hindered by people claiming it to be morally wrong
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not able to access them. Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers.So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not  able to access them"1. You seem to overlook the human equation known as "the human will".  Because an individual choose to ignore the moral prescription for behavior  does not in itself prove that there is no such thing as a universal moral law.  Morals are not descriptive, but prescription how a person “ought” to behave.  An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right  thing to do in a particular situation. "Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers"2. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues.  If you were to have “100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions -  there will be no consensus on the answers…” because there would be  disagreements upon facts. If the questions are answered, than morality's  prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the  choice to either to apply them or not""So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it"If you mean "measure" as in judging which to suppress and which to encourage, than yes. But to make the statement that people do not have access, than no.