azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

HELL NO. Morals are just an illusion. You as a person might have your own morals like IT'S WRONG TO EAT SOUP WITH A FORK or something, but another person might have a different point of view. Really, there is NO point of moralities. Morals and even laws shouldn't be put in the same thing. It's just wrong... I might not have a clue of what I'm talking about but... I read a good article about how moralities are just an illusion, sort of like you'd never jump off a cliff, but if your favorite celebrity would do it or told you too, you'd probably do it. People of higher authority seem to control you whether it's part of your morals or not. Kind of get where I'm shooting at?It also varies on cultural references. If it's OKAY to eat a dog in _____ and it might not be okay to eat it in _____, you'd still do it.It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right"Questions: Subject of homosexuality 1. Who are you referring to when you typed "YOU KNOW ITS WRONG" are you referring to yourself in second-person? 2. So than is that an acknowledgement of an individual who did receive an intuitive knowledge of what they "ought" to do, but willingly choose to disregard it?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally"First of all, what you just did is what is known as "the fallacy of equivocation". That is to say, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another". The word "law" has more than one definition. Secondly, “in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive”. Third, how could you compare the law of gravity to that of moral law? That is another logical fallacy known as "weak analogy", which is, "the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects". Let us clarify the meaning of the usage of the word "law" in dealing with the question of morality. It used to be called "the Law of Nature" by philosophers of the past. "The Law of Human Nature" is what they meant. The reason it was termed as such was because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. That is to say, they thought that the idea that decent human behavior was obvious. There is a major difference between the moral law and the law of gravity and all other laws such as, biological laws. How so? We can choose to obey or disobey the moral law where as the law of gravity and biological laws, etc. we can not.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Here are two definitions of the word law:1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties 2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are presentThese two definitions say that laws are either absolute truths in the universe, or basically just rules made up by people to govern themselves. Since the debate topic is whether or not there is a universal moral law, the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals. Therefore a statement of fact (as noted in the second definition) is needed. You acknowledge in your rebuttal that people are not bound by these moral "laws" like they are by other laws of science. So, by definition, these cannot be laws, just differences in opinions. Therefore, there is no universal moral law. Just because your thoughts on morality don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, that doesn't make science inapplicable, it just makes you wrong. Morals are only made up by individuals and the people they allow to influence them, there is no cosmic rule book for everyone out there.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"Here are two definitions of the word law"Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)Exactly my point, you choose just two of the various definitions. You still commited the two logical fallacies: 1. Equivocation fallacy and 2. weak analogy. Therefore, the conclusion is false. Secondly, yes I stand by what I said on my rebuttal. Third, these are not just "my thoughts" this is self-evident. The problem is, you think that it can be answered by scientific knowledge. It is not a scientific question. Science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality" ( Murphy, Mark, "The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia). You yourself acknowledged that, " the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals", right? How many people would you be able to ask, "Hey, by the way, did you had to stop and analyze and reason to see if stealing from you was wrong?" It is self-evident, (obvious). Hence, ORIGIN Latin conscientia ‘knowledge within oneself’, from scire ‘to know’ (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I would agree with this premise: "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions:1) There is a universal moral law2) God is the source of moral lawThe sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality that Flame carefully articulated is better explained psychologically than theologically. Our intuitions about morality stem from psychological archetypes, or mental-instincts, that are fundamental to the human mind. These archetypes of morality serve adaptive purposes just as do behavioral instincts. However, just because all humans have a sense of morality, this does not mean that our human morality is universal. We need not apply our moral codes to non-humans, for example. For a code to be universal, it would have to apply to all hypothetical beings (or perhaps sentient beings?) in the universe. Since the likelihood of sentient life on many other planets is very high, the population of the Earth is not a statistically sufficient sample size to generalize to the rest of the universe. Neither is it a diverse sample, since all the members come from the same tiny region of the universe (ie, Earth).Also, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions. I will appeal to Occam's razor and suggest that the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and that positing a God as the source of of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I. INTRODUCTION:In order for my opponent to demonstrate that my conclusion is false, he must prove that premise 1 or 2 is false. My syllogistic argument meets the following requirements which are: the truth of premises, the relevancy of premises, and the form is valid. The three terms of the argument have been connected and we can see that the conclusion indeed follows. There is no avoiding it.II. My Syllogistic Argument:1. Every law has a law giver.2. There is a Moral Law.3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.III. My Contentions:Contention 1: Our Reactions Helps Us Discover the Moral LawOur reactions will reveal the Moral Law written on our hearts and minds. It also indicates that relativism is ultimately unlivable. It is not always apperent from our actions, but it is indeed in our reactions. Contention 2: Without The Moral Law, There Would Be No Way To Measure Moral DifferencesIf the Moral Law does not exist, then there is no difference between equality and racism, care and abuse, life and murder. Also, statements like "Murder is evil," "racism is wrong," or "You shouldn't do abuse children," have no objective meaning. They're just someone's opinion. Terms such as, "good," "bad," and "worse," would have no objective meaning when used ina moral sense.Contention 3: Without The Moral Law, You Couldn't Know What Was Right Or WrongA person can not know what is moraly wrong unless they have some idea of what is moraly right.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

If any of you (the readers looking at this question) have studied foreign cultures and societies you'd know that very few moral issues have been agreed upon throughout history among all of them.For example:Cannibalism, wrong? Not according to certain Polynesian cultures.Slavery, wrong? It still exists in Africa to this day.Murder, wrong? Everybody has an opinion on when it could be necessary, if at all.Rape, wrong? If you follow certain Islamic clerics, and Christian leaders, they'll tell you that a wife should never deny her husband sex, and unconsented sex is rape. Further, in certain Islamic societies the raped person is punished for the crime of having an indecent form of sex.Child molestation, wrong? It was a common (accepted) practice a thousand or so years ago in a number of cultures. In Thailand there are child prostitutes.How about young adolescents and older men? This happened in ancient Greek culture.The point to take from this is that at any time throughout history to the present day, what our society considers right and wrong will change, and has changed, 180 degrees. If we can't find absolute moral positions that are timeless, it's fair to say that there are none or we have no ability to discern them.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I agree. Many people have different views on what is right or wrong, just as the examples you gave stated.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

It is hard for me to understand why anyone would answer this queston with "yes"I dont see any evidence of their being að universal moral law.There might be in the future, but you dont have to travel very far to see diffirent sets of morals.If anyone would like to suggest what is the universal moral code then I am all ears
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Read my arguments concerning "Cultural Relativism" before just posting the same question. Than, if you still do not see it, do not just say " I do not see". Make your case:examples, clarity. Fair enough? Your debating from that position. Read kamranw's argument and my rebuttal.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Good and evil are morals, beliefs and values that we made ourselves. The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values. How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other. We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing.Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it.Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic. Conclusion:Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Flame Wrote: 1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right"That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only.How do you get from the assertion that Hitler thought he was right, to the conclusion that he was an ethical subjectivst? Are you making an implicit argument that if someone does something that seems wrong to most people, yet believes in his own heart that he is doing the right thing, that he must be a subjectivist? Stated that way, this seems like quite a leap of logic, which would designate all social reformers as subjectivists.It seems more likely to me that Hitler had what he thought was an objective view of the world, and that he thought the rest of the world was just wrong from that standpoint. This is the typical perspective adopted by those who view themselves as reformers, wouldn't you agree? Those who think they somehow have access to objective moral truth might be capable of the most harm to others, considering that this sort of thinking seems to be what is behind violent acts of religious fundamentalism, for example the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the Crusades. I doubt that the 9/11 hijackers considered themselves subjectivists, but rather heroes who were trying to make the world an objectively better place by fighting what they saw as injustice. To them, the fact that most of us disagree would have been irrelevent, because in their view we are blinded to the objective truth.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

J. P. Stern, Professor in the University of London, author of one of the best known book on Nietzche.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Ravi Zacharia's explanation of Hitler's use of Nietzche's doctrines, especially the "superman" doctrine.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

I just wanted to point out that this video seems to be implying that Hitler applied Nietzsche's philosophy and expressed it through is life and political activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche at the most basic of levels, and perverted his philosophy into a mockery and a travesty. Nietzsche's writings are full of harsh criticisms. He reserved his most vitriolic rhetoric for the following three groups:-Germans-Nationalists-Anti-SemitesNazis combined all three of these. Nietzsche would have hated them more than any other group, especially considering the way they twisted and abused his life's work until it bore no resemblance to its original meaning.Nietzsche was a good friend of Richard Wagner, but stopped speaking to him and began openly criticizing him after he learned that Wagner was an anti-Semite. He also refused to bless his sister's marriage to the proto-Nazi, Bernhard Forster.Nowhere in Nietzsche does there exist a doctrine supporting the idea of a super race. the Superman (Ubermensch) is for Nietzsche a rare individual, not a group of people, and certainly unlikely to be german, nationalistic, or anti-Semitic. Just wanted to clear this up, as the common misconception that Nietzsche was some kind of proto-Nazi is completely false and unfounded. If you want a Nazi philosopher, look at Heidegger.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Granted, that Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal.1 (Brittanica Encyclopedia) I would like to point out that The German prefix über can have connotations of superiority, transcendence, excessiveness, or intensity, depending on the words to which it is prepended. Mensch refers to a member of the human species, rather than to a man specifically. I have to disagree with you that it is in reference to just one human being because "in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race."2 Secondly, I think you missed the point of the video. It did not suggest that Nietzche intentionally meant it as Hitler used it since it was just a portion of the video. But, the very philosophy of life that he proposed such as; to create his own values, etc. can be understood why Hitler and others would capitalize on it as history demonstrates. Snell described Europe's condition of society, "This "philosophy of life" influenced large sections of society, and there was much talk of the supremacy of will, of biological explanations of mankind and of society, the glorification of physical strength, and of pure vitality, instead of a higher spirituality; the intellect and the rational were despised, while strong "instincts" (Triebe) and the vital impulse (the élan vital of H. Bergson) were admired. Nietzsche's doctrine of the superman and of the will to power as the prime force in the world, envisaged at first as an aristocratic ethical system, became in popular literature the deification of brutal mankind, of will to domination, of the eternal struggle for existence, of brute strength -- though not without the complicity of that philosopher who unhesitatingly set the most daring aphorisms before the world." "The Fault of Mass Democracy," The Nazi Revolution: Germany's Guilt or Germany's Fate?, ed. John L. Snell (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1959) 79, Questia, Web, 19 Dec. 2009. In other words, there were certain conditions that were set and changed such as: political change, religious change, change in social and economical structure. (snell's) It seems that you forgot the Christians in your list that Hitler persecuted. After all, Nietzche's idea was to do away with God. Indeed, Hitler did lived it to the letter.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Point 2: Jesus' Teachings vs Hitler's Teachings1. Jesus of Nazareth:The Sermon on the MountBeatitudes Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:  "Blessed are the poor in spirit,  for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are those who mourn,  or they will be comforted.  Blessed are the meek,  for they will inherit the earth.  Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,  for they will be filled.  Blessed are the merciful,  for they will be shown mercy.  Blessed are the pure in heart,  for they will see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers,  for they will be called sons of God.  Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,  for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.Murder"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.  "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.An Eye for an Eye  "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.Love for Enemies  "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Therefore, "we cannot make Jesus a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, a political agitator and revolutionary or turn his message of God's kingdom into a program of politico-social action, unless we distort and reinterpret all the Gospel accounts, make a completely one-sided choice of sources, irresponsibly and arbitrarily work with isolated texts...and largely ignore Jesus' message as a whole...Even though it is as much the fashion today to speak of Jesus, the rebel, the revolutionary, as it was in Hitler's time to speak of Jesus the fighter, the leader the military commander, or in sermons of the First World War of Jesus the hero and patriot, it must be made unmistakably clear—for Jesus' own sake, regardless of the spirit of the age—that he was neither a supporter of the system nor a politico-social revolutionary." On other hand, we can understand why Hitler made use of Nietzche's doctrines, even though it was selectively picked, there was nothing to twist in Nietzche's doctrines.