azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I would imagine soThus it is subjective.but you're not explaining how that's relevant^ta-da^Or perhaps you are just incapable of understanding.Never know until you try, eh, scamp?Yes it does.Wanna qualify that, Tim?I did not mention opinion poles.Neither did I, hurr.Right, because there aren't any.Wanna qualify that, Tim?U2 are the greatest band in the world. True or false?False. I have given numerous examplesHow about quoting one (that is, if you've become too weary with my soporific dullardry to make one last attempt at an actual, substantiative objection)?"What if you say "chocolate is worth far more than vanilla", because you like it more?"That's an objective fact objective regardless of your motivation for saying it, but one unrelated to the question at hand. Quality and monetary value are often disparate, and to point to its monetary value as an indicator of quality would be a non-sequitur. I have never met anybody who disagreed with me over whether people come in different colours, whether water is wet, or whether x really does =-b+/-sqrt((bxb)-4ac)/2a. If you have...You don't seem like the kind of guy who does a lot of meeting. I've met several people who contend that people don't come in different colors, learned of a guy who most decidedly believed that water was not wet when I first started studying philosophy, and encountered dozens who claim not to actually "believe" in math.But hey, everyone's opinions are valid, right? It's all subjective. All a matter of opinion. Everybody is right about everything all the time, every notion served is equal, and nothing's anything. You've convinced me.Why? How can a moral be incorrect? There is no "MORAL GOD(!)".The same way anything can be incorrect: by being logically disproved. There isn't a "'_____ GOD(!)'" for every proposition actively working to make it correct or incorrect; they assume one of those values on their own merits. Again, that is just the way logic works. You'd do well to have a gander at the Wikipedia page at the least if you wish to continue this discussion.And I mean, it's generally assumed as a part of the scientific process that most things are incorrect until proven. But it's better to actively disprove shit when you're able.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

but you're not explaining how that's relevantI shouldn't need to.Wanna qualify that, Tim?Disagreement in matters of intangible values does imply subjectivity, by its very nature.Wanna qualify that, Tim?How about you provide an example of an objective moral? You have not done this yet.False.I would say the statement was true. Why do you consider the statement to be wrong? Because you don't like U2 as much as another band? How about quoting oneAbortion.That's an objective fact objective regardless of your motivation for saying itSubjective: Based on or influenced by personal tastes, opinions or feelings. Liking chocolate more than vanilla is the fact, saying that it is hence worth more than vanilla is a subjective statement.Quality and monetary value are often disparate, and to point to its monetary value as an indicator of quality would be a non-sequitur. That measurement of worth was not pecuniary. You don't seem like the kind of guy who does a lot of meeting.Why not?I've met several people who contend that people don't come in different colors, learned of a guy who most decidedly believed that water was not wet when I first started studying philosophy, and encountered dozens who claim not to actually "believe" in math.I stand corrected then. However, bragging about associating with a society of idiots is not commendable.But hey, everyone's opinions are valid, right? It's all subjective. All a matter of opinion. Everybody is right about everything all the time, every notion served is equal, and nothing's anything.Fact and Morality. Apple and Orange. Chalk and Cheese.The same way anything can be incorrect: by being logically disproved.I have never seen a moral disproved.There isn't a "'_____ GOD(!)'" for every proposition actively working to make it correct or incorrectYou are once again juxtaposing moral and fact. For a student of philosophy, you don't seem to grasp the difference.You'd do well to have a gander at the Wikipedia page at the least if you wish to continue this discussion.I have no wish to continue this discussion, but you are incorrigible. And I mean, it's generally assumed as a part of the scientific process that most things are incorrect until proven.Science cannot be applied to morality, rather vice versa.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I shouldn't need to.is =/= oughtNow cough it up, you pompous lady of a man.Disagreement in matters of intangible values does imply subjectivity, by its very nature.That's hardly axiomatic. Elaboration is necessary.The existence of an omnipotent being is intangible. People disagree about it. So, in following your reasoning, it is possible for an omnipotent being to both exist and not exist, depending on your preference? That's not subjectivity; that's intellectual sloth.You have not done this yet.I have, actually. Scroll up a few posts.Why do you consider the statement to be wrong? Because you don't like U2 as much as another band?Nope. My opinion doesn't factor in. It's false because U2's opus fails to meet much of the criteria classically requisite of "good music." Of course, being that I'm not a music expert, I could be wrong. But all evidence of which I am aware points to that not being the case.Liking chocolate more than vanilla is the fact, saying that it is hence worth more than vanilla is a subjective statement.But you couldn't use chocolate's monetary worth as justification unless it were actually true. You're conflating motivation and justification. If you were saying, as you didn't suggest in the last post but mentioned here, that chocolate is worth more than vanilla because you like it more, that would be both objectively incorrect and really, really stupid.That measurement of worth was not pecuniary.Then why mention pecunia at all? And if it wasn't pecuniary, what are you using to justify the assertion?Why not?RE:autismbraggingHey, you asked.a society of idiotsIt's pretty unjustifiably arrogant to hold them in such low regard while refusing to acknowledge the innumerable qualities you share with them. Fact and Morality. Apple and Orange. Chalk and Cheese.You've yet to substantiate any line of reasoning that would suggest this.I have never seen a moral disproved.This is a terrible shock to me and the rest of the nation.Honestly, have you ever actually had a conversation about morality before this? You seem unaccustomed.You are once again juxtaposing moral and fact.And you once again prove yourself to be quite the attentive student. Two gold stars for you.you are incorrigible.I'm highly vulnerable to reason, if you wanted to try that.Science cannot be applied to morality, rather vice versa.One more time! Tell me why.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

is =/= oughtNow cough it up, you pompous lady of a man.The morality of abortion is subjective because there are arguments for and against it, both of which are endorsed by a group of people. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, and arguing logically will make see you make an idiot out of yourself.So, in following your reasoning, it is possible for an omnipotent being to both exist and not exist, depending on your preference? That's not subjectivity; that's intellectual sloth.A better analogy would be "If God is proven to exist, then the persona of that God (Buddha, Allah etc) is a subjective matter". To continue the metaphor, you are saying that Allah is the only logical God, thus Buddha and Yahweh are foolish concepts.I have, actually. Scroll up a few posts.No, you have said that 2+2=4, hence morals are objective and logical. You have thus far failed to produce even one example of an objective, logical moral.It's false because U2's opus fails to meet much of the criteria classically requisite of "good music.You clearly have a one-track mind, so I forgive your idiocy.But you couldn't use chocolate's monetary worth as justification unless it were actually true. If you were saying, as you didn't suggest in the last post but mentioned here, that chocolate is worth more than vanilla because you like it more, that would be both objectively incorrect and really, really stupid.1) I was illustrating two points; one, that subjective statements can correlate to reality, but can also be objectively incorrect. Two, that being objectively incorrect does not render the statement entirely fallacious. 2) I did stipulate that the statement was born of the speaker's disposition.RE:autismI am not autistic.It's pretty unjustifiably arrogant to hold them in such low regard while refusing to acknowledge the innumerable qualities you share with them.I can only judge these people by the information you have given me. Now the rest of your argument is repetitive drivel, so I'll ignore it.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I think there is more common ground here than first appeared: If morality relies on external truth, doctrine, God perhaps, as you you seem to believe, and not within subjective opinions of men, then shouldn't you be arguing on the other side (the Yes side) of this debate?What is the difference between ethics and morality, if that is germane to this topic?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

If morality relies on external truth, doctrine, God perhaps, as you you seem to believe, and not within subjective opinions of men, then shouldn't you be arguing on the other side (the Yes side) of this debate?Some is, some isn't. Besides, religion and God are the inventions of man, rendering the same subjective connotations unto their proclamations.What is the difference between ethics and moralityYou have taken my juxtaposition of the words out of context.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

You made a category error: you conflated beliefs with opinions. Not all beliefs are opinions. How do you know that morality is based solely on opinion?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Morals are completely based off opinions, and opinions are always some form of bias. Nothing it automatically DEEMED bad or good, it's what we make of it.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

First of all, opinions are not always some form of bias. But that's irrelevant.How do you know that all morality is always based on opinions?What we "make of" things are not always opinions. When we take evidence or good reasoning we can make scientific laws and theories or even entire philosophies of them.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

There is a major problem with using "objective" and "Morality" in the same sentence. The simple fact is that social morality is subjective. That being said there is factual evidence to indicate that there are certain morals or maybe more accurately "principles" that have generally negative consequences if they are violated. Murder, stealing, lying, adultery, ect....generally have negative consequenses. Of course; some people would argue what constitutes negative consequences.....morals and values have more to do with one's personal beliefs and popular social views. For instance; in medieval times it was common practice for women to marry and have children in thier early teens. This was not commonly viewed as immoral. It is commonly viewed as immoral in our society. No; I'm not advacating teen pregnancy. Just sayin.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

This is the most cogent argument of them all, but I'm still going to dispute it.If there is factual evidence on which morality is based, how is it subjective? If we are basing morality upon negative consequences, an objective consideration, then isn't morality itself then objective?While values may be subjective and influenced by social norms that does not necessarily mean that morality is also subjective.Whether teens get pregnant early is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of whether their judgment is poor or not, so that was a bad example. Making a bad choice is not necessarily the same as making an immoral one.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Morality is subjective. What one person may consider good can easily be considered bad by another.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

This is not an argument; it is a statement of the opposing view.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

That doesn't make it subjective. That could mean that one person is right and the other wrong.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

As much as I dislike the very concept of Hell, judging from the world and the actions of most humanity I am inclined to agree that we do deserve every bit of misery that can be slung upon us, save perhaps for children or those disabled mentally from birth... but then I'm talking about adults here, so that really didn't need that much explaining I suppose. Oh and before anyone gets on their high horse, I'm an adult. Put two and two together, thanks.As for those asking me 'why' I feel this way, I don't really need to explain it. You only need to open your eyes to the world around you to understand, assuming you even want to.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

we do deserve every bit of misery that can be slung upon usWhat the fuck is wrong with you
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Seems you didn't read the entire thing. A pity, really. But entirely expected.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I did read the whole thing. The problem is that your belief is evil and fucked up. With that logic, the Holocaust victims deserved it, the people who died in the Twin Towers deserved it.In fact, why don't you go blow up a building, since we deserve it!
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

You're using a fallacy. And honestly if you're Christian you should be auto-subscribing to the belief that humanity is evil by nature. I'm speaking from a misanthropist point of view of course. After a certain point in human development, innocence no longer exists and we bear the full mantle of evil. Some of us just take to it more than others.As for my belief being 'evil'... tbh it's not. It's just being realistic. I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. We are not judged evil by what we have not done, but by what we have done. A victim is not guilty of a crime, yes? So your logic is fallacious. It would be more accurate to say that 'those who destroyed countless lives in the Holocaust' or 'those who blew up the Twin Towers' deserved to be punished for their guilt.But I expect nothing less of someone who can't even separate themselves from emotion during a debate.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Okay, I apologize, I didn't understand your argument, and apparently took some things far too seriously. When I read your argument, the line: we do deserve every bit of misery that can be slung upon us, read in my mind as: we must suffer as much as possibleAlso, I'm not Christian
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

So as I said before, "You didn't read the entire thing". I'm allowed a bit of poetic license as well. It's not my job to read it objectively, at any rate.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I did read thing whole thing, I just didn't understand very well
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

There's "reading", and then there's reading. Reading is not just reading the words on a page, but also comprehending them. You did only half of this.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

That is, the adult who's intellect is not impaired in any way and can understand the difference between right and wrong. But that would have taken too long to put in there, so it's here.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Some people like mass murderers, rapeists, child molesters, serial killers, genocidists like Hitler, Mio, Che, ide amein, Stalin, ect. Defently deserve to.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

infinite punishment for a finite crime? You sure got a loving god there.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Those crimes aren't finite they have life long psychological effects on the victims and their family's their torment is often lifelong.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

yeah and when that line dies out the crime is over.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

But the guilt remains. Life is a test. If you are a good person get rewarded for all eternity, if your bad you get punished for all eternity.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

A more accurate statement would be if you believe in god you get rewarded for eternity but if you don't believe in him but do good deeds all your life you still get punished for eternity.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Actually the pope has said that atheists can get to heaven if they do good works. So no Mr cynic it isn't.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Srom would disagree with you on that quite a bit.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Well we have a difference of opinion then. I believe we may also follow different denominations as well.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

If you have a difference in opinion, how in the world can you expect me, an atheist to take EITHER of you seriously?Srom spouts his version of bullshit, then you spout your bullshit, then some random Muslim spouts THEIR bullshit, and then we get loads of others who spout THEIR bullshit.Truth isn't an OPINION you fucking idiot.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

But everyone has their opinion on what's true and what isn't. We just differ in that area. We belong to different denominations.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Yes, that's extremely true, isn't it?And the very fact that no one can agree on truth makes me very skeptical of religions.They seem like a scam. Of course, they ARE a scam, and that's exactly why churches are rich.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

But most churches put that money toward charity. --------------
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

.......Wat.AHAHAHHADon't tell me you believe that. Yes, some goes to charity, but haven't you wondered why the vatican is super rich? Why nearly ALL preachers, especially those megachurch ones are super rich?Don't say something stupid and "absolute", and I won't either, but you cannot deny that religion, when it comes to money, is not very honest.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Actually the Catholic Church (I can't Speke for the preachers at the mega churches) spends 3.5million dollars yearly on charity that's no small amount.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Yep that's true because they can't get into heaven unless they repent.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Oh Yes! Yes Cuaroc Yes!
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

They made an eternal choice. Thats the point. That doesnt change justice in Gods sense.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Why are child molesters and rapists on the same level as mass murders?
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Because their crimes are so heinous that they are on par with murder for wickedness even if they don't do as much physical damage to the victim. Just my opinion.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Because sexual abuse is a horrible experience that fucks the victim up. My father molested me when I was 13 and some dude raped me when I was 22. I am still getting over it.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Yes but you and a couple of friends are not dead.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Okay, fuck you. Fuck you for not having compassion. .
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

I am truly sorry about that but they will have that weighted on them during Judgment day.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Whoever downvoted my comment about being molested and raped is a sick fucking bastard.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I wasn't the one that downvoted it. But I just did now.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

You downvote me for saying that I was molested and raped. You are disgusting. It is not my fucking fault that I was molested and raped, you cunt!
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

Its just that I love a bit of child molestation and rape I guess. We all have different tastes. Moron.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

This assumes free will, does it not? All of the above individuals and categories of people are direct consequences of their genetic and biological predispositions as triggered by environmental stimuli. Is it truly justifiable to penalize/reward an individual based on factors they did not choose nor control? Further, the penalizing/rewarding of the individual through hell/heaven ignores the role of the collective (society) in both individual action and collective behavior (e.g. genocide).
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

So you subscribe to the belief that all crime is attributed to genetic factors and we aren't responsible for our wrong doings? Well I suppose that should apply both ways then how dose it feel knowing you have never actually accomplished anything in your life?
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I think that we remain accountable out of necessity, but no I do not believe in responsibility. This does not mean I have never accomplished anything in my life, merely that I attribute those accomplishments to my genetics and environment. For me, this perspective does not dampen the positive emotional response associated with success but it does keep me humbled in that experience.*To clarify as well, I think that crime is a consequence not only of genetics but also of environmental conditions and experience.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

There are people who grew up in poor conditions and became criminals. And there are people who grew up in poor conditions and became great people the difference is self control and decisions. You are ultimately responsible for your actions not your parents or grand parents you and only you. And if your crimes aren't your fault then your accomplishments aren't yours either you can't have it both ways.