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

To you, not to me.So? Like I said, if it's not immoral to you, then you are immoral and thus "wrong" in several senses of the word.2+2=4 is not a moral.I don't think you quite understand what morality is. See, ethics are to morality as maths are to numbers. It is, in the loosest sense, a guide to how we might logically approach the living of our lives, just like math is a guide to how we are to logically approach quantity, shape and arrangement. To claim that ethics should be the one discipline subject to subjective reasoning, that it should be the single area exempt from the laws of thought, is nothing less than special pleading. You haven't provided an accredited definition of morality that confirms your conjecture. You haven't provided much of anything in the way of evidence or reasoning, and I'm beginning to think this was an 8/10.Because he killed your wife.That sounds like it would make for great justification if we were talking about reasons you would want to kill him. But emotion/instinct and morality are distinctly separate things. Why should you? What moral reasoning would compel you to kill another human being?Note: I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing in the same situation. I probably would. But I would be wrong in doing so.Mathematics is not morality.You're an astute young buck, aren't you?Morals do not have to be logical. It makes logical sense to rape women, but most men's morals forbid it.I'd like to hear your logical justification of rape. Maybe those men are wrong.All you have done to refute me is quote example unrelated to morality, and call me wrong. Your argument amounts to "mathematics and facts are not subjective, thus morals are not either."Re-read my posts a few times and try a little harder to understand.To be fair, you haven't really submitted much for me to refute, so I've been made to repeat myself each successive time you fail to understand. If you'd like to submit a cogent argument, it's not too late.For simplicity's sake, my argument is this: It is a logical impossibility for a thing to be both right and wrong. If, when asked the same question, two people come up with two different answers, one or both of them is wrong. That's just the way logic works, and it's the pattern that everything in the universe must follow. Nor are they necessarily juxtaposed.No shit. They're closer to synonymous.Wrong morality?Are you absolutely sure that you're not autistic?Asperger's? Anything?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

So? Like I said, if it's not immoral to you, then you are immoralAnd you think yourself a logical being? Incredible.I don't think you quite understand what morality is. See, ethics are to morality as maths are to numbers.And numbers are to morality as chalk is to cheese. To claim that ethics should be the one discipline subject to subjective reasoning, that it should be the single area exempt from the laws of thought, is nothing less than special pleading. To me, forcing one's morals upon another is immoral.But emotion/instinct and morality are distinctly separate things.I would call emotion an intrinsic aspect of morality. Killing children is generally regarded to be wrong. Do you think this is because of some Darwinian necessity or because we cannot emotionally countenance such a thing?Why should you? Honour.What moral reasoning would compel you to kill another human being?Yes, what moral reasoning could possibly compel me to kill my wife's murderer? But I would be wrong in doing so.According to what force? You're an astute young buck, aren't you?Ah, so you have no refutation of merit.I'd like to hear your logical justification of rape.Spreading one's seed to multiple mothers.Re-read my posts a few times and try a little harder to understand.They have been subjected to intense scrutiny and have been found wanting.To be fair, you haven't really submitted much for me to refute, so I've been made to repeat myself each successive time you fail to understand. If you'd like to submit a cogent argument, it's not too late.You have yet to do so yourself.It is a logical impossibility for a thing to be both right and wrong.Depends on what the "thing" is.If, when asked the same question, two people come up with two different answers, one or both of them is wrong.What is your favourite band? Do you like chocolate?What is your mother's name?When do you go to bed?What is your profession?No shit. They're closer to synonymous.Not on this planet or in this language.Are you absolutely sure that you're not autistic?Asperger's? Anything?As positive as one can be about these things, but if I am indeed so afflicted, it seems pointless to ask me.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

And numbers are to morality as chalk is to cheese.That is not how an analogy goes, but okay. I should say, though, that mathematics (like the logic that defines it) is always relevant.To me, forcing one's morals upon another is immoral.But "one's morals" is a misnomer. There are simply things that are moral and things that aren't. Unless you are a vehemently irrational person, "my morals" are the same as "your morals" or "his morals" or "her morals:" they are all simply morals. If one person chooses to deny them or fails to reason them out coherently, that doesn't mean "his morals" are just as valid as those of someone who was more successful.Killing children is generally regarded to be wrong. Do you think this is because of some Darwinian necessity or because we cannot emotionally countenance such a thing?It is "generally regarded" to be wrong by Darwinian necessity, which is what evokes our emotion over it and causes us to find it unconscionable. It is wrong by virtue of a logical process.Honour.That's about as vague as "for God." What constitutes that honor and why is it good?Yes, what moral reasoning could possibly compel me to kill my wife's murderer?That's what I asked you. I can understand how it might be viscerally pleasing (hence why I might do so myself), but what makes it moral?According to what force?Please note that I'm only as repetitive as you make me here:Logic.Ah, so you have no refutation of merit.What refutation is there to offer to "mathematics and morality are not the same thing?" It's not that it's wrong; it's just completely and laughably irrelevant. Neurology and astrophysics aren't the same thing. Your rebuttal?Spreading one's seed to multiple mothers.That's an evolutionary justification, not a logical one. (See: naturalistic fallacy)Depends on what the "thing" is.Why should it?What is your favourite band?Do you like chocolate?What is your mother's name?When do you go to bed?What is your profession?You can't be serious.These are all subjectively phrased questions. "You" in each question refers to a different person (the subject; hence "subjectivity," durrrr), still meaning that if you asked the same question (as in a question that meant the same thing [do I really have to explain this?]), each answer would still yield the same results if correct.Not on this planet or in this language.You don't seem to be an authority on either.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

I should say, though, that mathematics (like the logic that defines it) is always relevant.I have mathematically disproved your theories already. A refutation which you conveniently ignored. If one person chooses to deny them or fails to reason them out coherently, that doesn't mean "his morals" are just as valid as those of someone who was more successful.Thus your refutation amounts to "I am a bigot, everybody who disagrees with me is wrong".It is "generally regarded" to be wrong by Darwinian necessity, which is what evokes our emotion over it and causes us to find it unconscionable. It is wrong by virtue of a logical process.That is not true. When I hear of 40 children being killed in a bombing, my initial reaction is not "Oh no, what will become of the species?".That's about as vague as "for God." What constitutes that honor and why is it good?You cannot understand why honour demands that I kill my wife's murderer? People these days...That's what I asked you. I can understand how it might be viscerally pleasing (hence why I might do so myself), but what makes it moral?He may murder again. He also killed your wife, fool. If your morals do not dictate that you avenge your family's destruction, then that is your loss. Mine, on the other hand, demand it. Please note that I'm only as repetitive as you make me here: Logic.There are logical arguments for and against all morals.What refutation is there to offer to "mathematics and morality are not the same thing?" It's not that it's wrong; it's just completely and laughably irrelevant.If you do not disagree that they are disparate, then you must understand why mathematical examples are inappropriate in a moral debate.Neurology and astrophysics aren't the same thing. Your rebuttal?Don't state that a brain is an organ to prove the theory that stars are too. If the allusion is beyond you, then that is your problem.That's an evolutionary justification, not a logical one.Not evolutionary at all. Creating more children is the logical way of ensuring that your genes are preserved.You can't be serious.These are all subjectively phrased questions.You said "any question".You don't seem to be an authority on either.Well you are as bigoted as I am, so I can understand why my disagreement implies ignorance to you.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

You mathematically disproved nothing; you phrased your conjecture algebraically.I had thought that it was the only language you understood. Evidently I was wrong.That would be a great summation, again, if you had so far been able to establish that morals are unique in being the one thing within the sphere of human knowledge that is exempt from the laws of thought.Neither is that of an advanced ape. Instead, it feels what is commonly known as "sadness."Sadness = a feeling. Subjective = from feelings. I'll take that as "I don't know." So that's "I don't know" against "Murder as an inherent evil."Why would a logical being consider murder evil? Evil is an entirely subjective notion.An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.Forgiveness for the loss of an eye leaves the just world blind and the criminals the only ones who can see.There's nothing particularly reasonable about what ultimately amounts to spite.The desire to do harm to your wife's murderer is perfectly reasonable. Following one's desires is equally reasonable. Honorable, sure, but given that you weren't even able to define honor when I asked, you're hardly justified to act in its name.I am perfectly capable of telling you what my definition of honour is, but it would apparently be meaningless to you, so forgive me if I am unwilling to spend several hours explaining such a concept to an idiot.That's not how logic works, but alright.I don't believe you understand how logic works. If you did, you would understand why it is not a suitable system by which to declare something moral.Give me some examples. Abortion:ProCircumstances may be such that the child's life would be unhappy or that the parents' could not support the child.ConSome consider the act of abortion to be murder.ProThe birth may endanger the mother's life, necessitating action.ConThe operation may destroy both the zygote and the mother, rendering it pointless.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Why do you assume that I think subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive?Before I answer, how do you define veracity? Do you mean objectively true? Said another way, are you asking "why do you think subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive?"
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Before I answer, how do you define veracity?Conforming to the facts, whether consciously or not. Are you telling me that guesswork is incorrect 100% of the time?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.It doesn't matter what becomes of people who accept that objective morality doesn't exist, for this discussion, because it has no relevancy to the truth of the statement.Further you can't make a moral argument to support objective morality because it becomes a matter of you using morality to justify morality.2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.That morality is subjective is an apparently objective truth.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality." Each refers to standards of behavior, what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality."Yeah, let's dispense with gravity so that we can argue that up is down.Each refers to standards of behavior; what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.If it does not refer to a doctrine or external teaching, it is based upon the mentality of the individual concerned and is thus subjective. For example, the morals of two people may differ. This implies that morality is not a definite, arbitrary thing and hence cannot be objective. Now, I have seen you use numerical examples, so I will express this mathematically:Where morality E {1,2,3,4}1 ≠ 2 ≠ 3 ≠ 4---> 1 ≤ Morality ≤ 4 ---->---> Morality = x Understand?As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.See above.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

If it does not refer to a doctrine or external teachingBut it does. That's what we're arguing.it is based upon the mentality of the individual concerned and is thus subjectiveAnd it isn't. That's what we're arguing.For example, the morals of two people may differ.So? All that means is that one or both of them is wrong. This implies that morality is not a definite, arbitrary thing and hence cannot be objective.Again, I insist that I can walk through walls. My friend disagrees. Does this render the solidity of walls a subjective matter?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

But it does. That's what we're arguing.That's not what you wrote.And it isn't. That's what we're arguing.Reiterating your assertions does not confirm them.So? All that means is that one or both of them is wrong.Who's to judge?Again, I insist that I can walk through walls.That's not a moral.My friend disagrees. Does this render the solidity of walls a subjective matter?It renders the opinion a subjective matter.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Reiterating your assertions does not confirm them.That's kind of the joke I was making. I can't tell whether you're aware that you were doing the same exact thing.Who's to judge?Reality is.That's not a moral.No, but it holds equal Truth value.It renders the opinion a subjective matter.How so?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

You say that reality is to judge which of the two people with different moral inclinations is correct, but in doing so you are assuming that it is possible for one to be "correct" about morals, and that morals are intrinsically tied into the nature of reality. To me it sounds like you are assuming your answer to the question before you make the argument. One would need to prove that morals are bound to the nature of reality (physics, one might call it) in order to assert that there can be universally "correct" morals. So far as I can tell, all manifestations of "morals" come from the thoughts of subjective beings, not inscribed somewhere in the laws of physics.On a similar note, you say that the subjectivity of passing through walls is of equal Truth value to the subjectivity of morals, but passing through walls seems to be much more questioning the nature of physics in a very direct way, whereas we have yet to prove such a connection between morals and physics. In this case, whether or not one truly can walk through walls is objective, but whether or not one thinks they can is subjective. The only reason we label the person who claims to be capable of such feats as "wrong" is because an overwhelming majority of people subjectively think it is impossible, based on their own subjective experiences with the nature of reality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

That's kind of the joke I was making.Ah, humour.I can't tell whether you're aware that you were doing the same exact thing.You obviously required a more in-depth explanation, so I gave you two, one in English, the other in mathematics.Reality is.So reality has morals?No, but it holds equal Truth value.Not really. Walls are solid, the morality of abortion is not.How so?Two people, two beliefs. If their opinions where objective, they would be identical.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Not really. Walls are solid, the morality of abortion is not.How's that? The only explanation you've given so far is that people have differing opinions on it, which would be devastatingly insufficient in any other discipline.Two people, two beliefs. If their opinions where objective, they would be identical.You're still not really getting this. People can differ on plenty of things without affecting its absolute Truth in the least.You need to offer something more than the fact that humanity hasn't reached a consensus on morality if you want to argue that it isn't objective, because humanity hasn't reached a consensus about anything. A good argument I've seen made is that morality doesn't exist at all. Maybe you should try that.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

I think that to argue that morality is subjective essentially is to argue that morality don't exist. You can easily argue that people have personal morals, which they look to to guide them in their own sense of right and wrong; you would be hard pressed to deny that people have these thoughts. However, when you say "morality" out of the context of a specific person, it implies Morality with a capitol M, a sort of universal scale of good/evil, a.k.a. objective morals. To argue against objective morality is to argue against Morality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

How's that?People disagree, you moron. The only explanation you've given so far is that people have differing opinions on itThe crux of the matter.which would be devastatingly insufficient in any other discipline.Yes, as a scenario where an apple falls to the ground would be insufficient evidence when debating something other than gravity. You're still not really getting this.No, you're not. You are simply reiterating an opinion that you cannot prove to be correct, whilst claiming that all subjective opinions are incorrect. You need to offer something more than the fact that humanity hasn't reached a consensus on morality if you want to argue that it isn't objectiveWhy? Morality is intrinsically emotional.because humanity hasn't reached a consensus about anything.x=-b+/- sqrt(b*b)-4ac/2aPeople come in different colours.Britain is an island.Water is wet.A good argument I've seen made is that morality doesn't exist at all. Maybe you should try that.Morality does exist, in the minds of those with morals. Its the physical morals that trip you up, which is funny, as there are none.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

People disagree, you moron.I would imagine so, but you're not explaining how that's relevant; only repeating it. People disagree on the nature of all sorts of things, as I've repeated over and over and over and over again. Disagreement does not foster subjectivity. Opinion polls are ultimately meaningless. We disagree about whether objective morals exist. That doesn't make the existence of objective morals a subjective matter. Ultimately, the existence of objective morals is a proposition that has one of two values: true or false. The same is true of all things. The crux of the matter.Elaborate.No, you're not. You are simply reiterating an opinion that you cannot prove to be correct,And hey, that's exactly what you're doing. Or maybe you're not and you're just refusing to explain your reasoning to be esoteric. Maybe now we can get somewhere, eh? No, I never argued that all opinions are incorrect; only that those in direct conflict with reality are. I say "vanilla is better than chocolate." There's no distinct factor in reality that makes vanilla better than chocolate (this could be disputed, I'm just giving an example). My opinion is therefore wrong. It's really not all that difficult to understand. x=-b+/- sqrt(bb)-4ac/2aPeople come in different colours.Britain is an island.Water is wet.If you think these things are universally accepted by all people with opinions as fact, then you haven't met enough people with opinions. Morality does exist, in the minds of those with morals.there are none.Either those values in the minds of those with morals represent real principles or they don't. Can't have it both ways, champ.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

I would imagine soThus it is subjective. but you're not explaining how that's relevantOr perhaps you are just incapable of understanding. People disagree on the nature of all sorts of things, as I've repeated over and over and over and over again. Disagreement does not foster subjectivity.Yes it does.Opinion polls are ultimately meaningless.I did not mention opinion poles. Their veracity or lack thereof has no connection to their subjectivity.We disagree about whether objective morals exist. That doesn't make the existence of objective morals a subjective matter.Right, because there aren't any. You are confusing facts with morals. If a wall is red, then it is red regardless of what people think. The same logic cannot apply to morals.Ultimately, the existence of objective morals is a proposition that has one of two values: true or false. The same is true of all things.U2 are the greatest band in the world. True or false? Elaborate.I have thrice elaborated. I have come to the unhappy conclusion that you are simply incapable of understanding.And hey, that's exactly what you're doing. Or maybe you're not and you're just refusing to explain your reasoning to be esoteric. Maybe now we can get somewhere, eh?I have given numerous examples, whereas your arguments are in the format of:"It isn't true, therefore it isn't true, and because of this fact, I do not believe that it is true; by extension, it is not true."No, I never argued that all opinions are incorrectYou said in effect that subjectivity and veracity were mutually exclusive."vanilla is better than chocolate."What if you say "chocolate is worth far more than vanilla", because you like it more? That statement is true (in pecuniary terms), regardless of whether you googled it.If you think these things are universally accepted by all people with opinions as fact, then you haven't met enough people with opinions.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...Either those values in the minds of those with morals represent real principles or they don't. Why? How can a moral be incorrect? There is no "MORAL GOD(!)".