azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Is it moral for me to use your mother as a test subject for a trial rape?Is it moral for that scientific experiment?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

It doesn't matter if certain experiments are moral or not, it only matters if the concept of morality (which is religious) and the concept of science can co-exist.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

the concept of morality (which is religious)Right. Atheists don't have morals. Are you an idiot? Morality has got absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Morality is an inherently religious concept.-----------------------------------------------
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Morality is an inherently religious concept.Religion is an inherently fuck faced concept.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Might you view the Religion of Islam in such a concept ???????????????????
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I was a muslim when I was 14-15 so I can tell you as someone who has read both the qur'an and hadiths that Nom and Mingi are right and you are a retard samwich.So are you confused ???????????????????????
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Morality is an inherently religious concept.No, it's an inherently biological concept with absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion has killed millions upon millions of people, so to try to equate it with morality is stupid. Trying to DEFINE it as morality is so far beyond that you are actually in orbit around stupid.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

biological conceptHow so?Religion has killed millions upon millions of peopleReligion hasn't killed anyone, as it isn't a sentient being. Many have killed for religion, if that's what you meant. Even so, you're taking that out of context. Just because many people have killed in the name of God doesn't mean that they've murdered in the name of God. Those are two different things.Trying to DEFINE it as morality is so far beyond that you are actually in orbit around stupid.No one's trying to define religion as morality. I'm simply saying that religion caused morality.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

The entire point of Communism is to get rid of the state.Your familiar with the Utopian lie I was referring to. The supposed end goal of Marx’s proposed despotism is an inarticulated end to despotism. Between you and I, I am the only one who quotes Marx when discussing Marx. It’s not hard to see why. Same reason you have to ban me almost immediately. Lest I quote Marx too much for you to keep on pretending.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Your familiar with the Utopian lie I was referring to.I'm familiar with the fact that you spend your days illustrating how little you understand about Marxism.The supposed end goal of Marx’s proposed despotismOh, I see. Marx proposed despotism, did he? Marx's Theory of Despotism.Here's an idea, Amarel. Take your stupid Zionist lies, shove them up your ignorant ass, and fuck off back to Israel. You're a subhuman little cunt, you're a pathological liar, you're a fascist and you're a fucking idiot.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

“Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads...”Of course he prattles on a bit, but this central purpose is maintained. In his same manifesto he calls for State ownership of means of production and a State bank monopoly. Your lies can’t persist in the face of Marx’s own words, which is why I insist on quoting Marx and you avoid it.I’ve got citable facts on my side Nazi. All you have is insults.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

“Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads...”Of course he prattles on a bit, but this central purpose is maintained.Oh Jesus Christ shut up you pathetic little deceitful bastard. You can't define Marxism as a theory of despotism on the basis that you've managed to find a single sentence written by Marx with the word "despotism" in it, and especially when you deliberately cut the quote off before making clear that he is talking about despotism AGAINST THE RULING CLASS. The full quote reads:-We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm YOU ARE LITERALLY HUNTING FOR FRIGHTENING-SOUNDING WORDS WRITTEN BY MARX THAT YOU CAN TAKE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.Fuck off, you lying little fascist bastard. You literally are trying to turn the truth upside down, since the ruling class ARE the despots.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Atheists don't have morals.He never said this, where did you even get that idea from?Morality has got absolutely nothing to do with religion.Elaborate.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

He never said thisYes he did, idiot. He said the concept of morality was religious. Grow up and learn that you don't have to state something verbatim in order for your meaning to become clear. Elaborate.It's biological you fucking idiot.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes he did,He never said that atheists don't have morals. It's biological you fucking idiot.How is it biological? Did we just somehow manage to get it?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

He never said that atheists don't have morals.Cool. You aren't heterosexual. Now I'm going to argue that I never said you were gay, because I'm THAT MUCH OF A STUPID LITTLE PRICK.How is it biological?That question doesn't make any sense. How are your feet biological, you dumb fucking cunt?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Cool. You aren't heterosexual.Actually, I am.Now I'm going to argue that I never said you were gay,Ok, how does this have anything to do with what we're saying?That question doesn't make any sense. How are your feet biological, you dumb fucking cunt?No seriously, how is it biological? Where did it come from?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

It's biological you fucking idiot.How so?-----------------------------------------
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Obviously not, however, your argument seems to fit with "Scientism vs Morality" and not science in general. Scientism can be put as, "putting science on the highest pedestal, higher than other intellectual systems, including morality." Scientists generally do not conduct immoral science experiments.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If morality did not exist, then there would be no concept of what is good or evil. It would come down to what is beneficial to a person( or community) and what is not. Without the boundaries that morality imposes, arguments against evil things such as racism and genocide become harder to fight. From a purely scientific point, those ideas suddenly become more viable. Racism allows a population to protect itself from foreign pathogens and disease by secluding themselves from what they perceive as a threat. Genocide would allow for a community to guarantee that its genes survive. I understand that these evil actions still occur today, but because of morality, we are able to fight them and try to eliminate them from society.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

just need to fine balance between those to really important things, as humans we have a brain that represent science, and a soul that represent moral and we truly need those to in our lives, so yeah i think they can peacefully coexist!
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I feel that it is our moral duty to push Science to its furthest frontiers as long as it does not impede on human and animal rights. Knowledge and research is a God-given gift.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Trust me when I say this, the roman catholics hated Galileo for stating that science and religion go together. I have debunked stupid catholics ever since. You are actually right, science is a God given gift. Without it, we wouldn't be advanced like today, we'd still be living in castles....and well....dirty villages and filthy places overall with little to zero sanitation.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Morality is subjective. If you ask a headhunter if it bothers him to have 6 human skulls hanging from a rope he'd say "yes, my brother has 9". If you think morality only comes from some magical being you've been brainwashed.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

You're slabbering an enormous amount of pretentious dung, but then that's not surprising as you're the epitome of a left wing arrogant shitThere is such a thing as congenital human decency which includes such character traits as honesty, respect for other people and the ability to be able to distinguish between right & wrong.''If you think morality comes from some magical being you've been brainwashed'';- There you go hallucinating again you dumb cunt.Where in the thread does the debate creator mention that he/she considered morality to come from some magical source?The only insane fool to mention such an outlandish scenario was you, you pompous phony.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lol
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lolNo you won't. Scientists have been shaking chemicals for decades and have never animated anything. Life is no more a random bunch of chemicals than it is the creation of a bearded wizard in the sky. Evolution tells us absolutely nothing about how life originated or where it came from.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

........................... I agree about the chemicals .... the beard ?? < God is not a man
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I agree about the chemicalsI am most deliciously satisfied with your agreement.God is not a manAre you claiming Nicholas Cage is not God?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I think I realised this essential truth when i saw him punch a woman while wearing a bear suit in The Wickerman ^^
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Depends, but this is generally true. Scientist have animated things from shaking chemicals..... remember your 9th grade biology class?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

You're an idiot..... lol.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

What if he is not an idiot? HOW YOU CAN KNOW WHO THAT IS THE GENIUS? what if you are the idiot and your dumbo dumb dumb brain think he the idiot instead of the true him the genius?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

You'll be dead in a few years. Laugh it up.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Dupe
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense. I believe that biological altruism exists in various degrees and in various interpretations among biological creatures. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion. If so, then that really isn't the case. There are just as many things in the Bible that I find morally wrong as there are that I find morally righteous. I mean, "Thou shalt not let a sorceress live"? C'mon.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion. I've actually argued against morality being a sole byproduct of religion but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same. I believe it may have broadened the scope.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same.No problem. Those people are dead wrong.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense ... well then good .... I'm looking fwd to raping your children :)
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I believe he meant that morality is subjective.Most would agree that raping children is bad.What about something like abortion?Many people would argue it's immoral, but about as many would dispute that.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Morality itself is not subjective, there's an objective morality. What you're saying is in reference to perceptions. There is an objective morality, like how there's an objective reality, and then there are perceptions of that morality or of that reality.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Morality itself is not subjective, there's an objective morality.It is extremely easy to demonstrate that you are incorrect because there is not one single thing which every human being agrees is morally wrong. Not even rape and/or murder.You are talking complete, unfettered bollocks.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

You are talking complete unfettered bollocks.You apparently didn't pay attention. I pointed out that there are perceptions of morality and then the objective morality itself. You can think murder is okay, but that doesn't make murder moral.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I pointed out that there are perceptions of morality and then the objective morality itself.There are only perceptions, there is no objective morality. The problem with theists is that their worldview allows them to consider subjective things and social constructs as objective truth because they think the universe was created by a sentient being. Saying that your morality is objective because your religion says so is no different than saying it's an objective fact that chicken tastes better than broccoli because god likes chicken more. What is objective is that children don't like to be molested and people don't like to be murdered, and that society is more productive and safe for everyone if people don't do those things. It's not the morality that's objective, it's the logic that certain behaviours are counter productive and we shouldn't do them.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

there is no objective moralityIf there is no objective morality, what are you perceiving?It's not the morality that's objective, it's the logic that certain behaviours are counter productive and we shouldn't do them.But it's still that morality is objective because molesting children is wrong and murdering people is wrong. Objectively. You can disagree with those statements, but you would be incorrect.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If there is no objective morality, what are you perceiving?If there are no red bananas, what are you eating?But it's still that morality is objective because molesting children is wrongBut child molesters obviously don't agree with you, thereby disproving that morality is objective.You're such a damned idiot.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

what are you eating?Nothing. Nothing, so long as red bananas are the only food available.don't agree with youThat doesn't make morality subjective. That just proves that child molesters are immoral people objectively.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

You apparently didn't pay attention.If I wasn't paying attention then I wouldn't know you are talking complete, unfettered bollocks. You really should stop blaming other people for your own stupidity.I pointed out that there are perceptions of morality and then the objective morality itself.But you have no objective evidence for objective morality and hence are again talking complete, unfettered bollocks.Do me a favour and just stfu. You're an idiot.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Killing innocent people and stealing isn't right. Do you object to that?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes, I object to it! Why is it not right to kill them before you steal? Would you like them to fight back and protect their property from your theft? This seems the wrong way to do it!
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Dupe
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes , what would you personally draw the line at at ?In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I think any line that I personally draw would be a case by case basis. There have been instance where the quest for knowledge has tiptoed across the lines of what I consider morality, such as grave robbers digging up recently deceased whose corpses where then sold for scientific study. In many cases the person conducting their experiments knew or at least turned a blind eye to where the corpse came from.In this instance it goes very much against the family of the departed and their wishes. Again though, it would be a case by case basis.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?Dermot, are you saying we should just let you get away with sexually abusing kids because it's "necessary"? That's nauseating.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Quantum, when have you not been abusing and fondling kids?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Hmmm. I might be dodging the question a little, but from some people's perspectives it is morally right to do things to advance science (and human knowledge) that may not seem very nice. I'm not going to go so far as Nazi human experimentation or something, don't worry, but some might argue that the reason for our existence is to advance our knowledge, though people will disagree about what acceptable costs are. If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be made, I might choose the latter. (Assume no positive side effects of the discovery for humans other than the new knowledge obtained) What would you choose Mint?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it". If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be madeI would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue. Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter? Where would you draw the line in that? Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

"I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it." Of course I agree (although I haven't really done any research into it), It was just an example of how far people can go. I'm sure that some Nazis thought it was worth it."I would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue."Not quite sure what you mean about 'using that knowledge.' My question was kind of context-less, I'm not sure what the knowledge gained from saving them would be? "Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter?"No I wouldn't, because it comes down to what I value most. I value my family over a scientific discovery, but I value a scientific discovery over some stranger's life. I'm not sure what my answer would be if the question were between erasing all scientific discoveries vs killing a family member. "Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious."Of course. No questions should be off limits (not that yours could have been off limits).
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I'm sure that some Nazis thought it was worth it.Yes, but I'm more sure that those Nazi's saw the Jews as less than people so they didn't care what pain and torture they put them through in the name of science.Not quite sure what you mean about 'using that knowledge.' My question was kind of context-less, I'm not sure what the knowledge gained from saving them would be?By saving them you gain knowledge if that circumstance were to happen again, it was mostly just building context.And thank you for answering my question. It would always depend on the circumstance thus a case by case basis.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If your scientific study could have saved many lives, but to sacrifice one, I say do it.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If that life is of a loved one (like your child) and they were unwilling to sacrifice? I'm curious.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Well, this changes the premise, but that's ok. My now modified answer would be, it depends on what kind of scientific achievement I'm surpassing, advancing, or discovering.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Yup! It's a different angle to look at it, I appreciate your response.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Hello M:My morals have NOTHING to do with science.. However, people who get their morals from a book that is inconsistent with science have a dilemma to sort out..excon
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Given that scientific research has ethical guidelines I'd say that "science", in the manner that we practice it, has morality built into it. One can dispute whether the guidelines properly serve morality but they do exist.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Given that scientific research has ethical guidelines I'd say that "science", in the manner that we practice it, has morality built into it. So how do you explain psychopaths...