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

if we all suddenly vanished one day our sense of evil would vanish too.What else would vanish if we did?Objectivity isn't a prerequisite for outrage.Then he'd be outraged at nothing?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

What else would vanish if we did?Ourselves, our culture, our values.Then he'd be outraged at nothing?People are outraged due to feelings, not objectivity.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

People are outraged due to feelings, not objectivity.That's like saying "people are hungry because they're hungry." His outrage isn't what outrages him. Something else has to inspire it.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

That's like saying "people are hungry because they're hungry." His outrage isn't what outrages him. Something else has to inspire it.It's not tautological if read thusly:The emotion of outrage is a feeling. There is no objective guide causing people to feel this way, it is subjective.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

There is, in a very general sense. The fields of neurology, behavioral science and psychology all study it.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.2. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts (I hope this clears things up).
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Yes it is. If there was nothing to label murder as wrong then how could it be "wrong"? This sort of judgment is entirely based on what one subjectively considers moral.The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"So I suppose I'm proof that you are wrong. If these things are objectively wrong then I wouldn't be able to truthfully deny them. Walls are objective, I can't pass through them regardless of if I deny their objectivity. But, I can absolutely chose what I view as immoral - if anything. Therefore, morality is subjective.This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?Stop straw-manning me, you're not fooling anyone.He's not "straw-manning" you, he's speaking in general. Don't be so defensive.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"Physics isn't objective. It exists outside of our minds as reality. Attempting to break the laws of physics cannot work even if you believe it can.This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?It doesn't matter what people believe they can do, for objective reality it matters what exists outside the mind.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Great. Then why wouldn't the same standards of reality apply to morality?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Great. Then why wouldn't the same standards of reality apply to morality?It's because morality is a feeling. There are no natural laws that punish murder, for example.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

The same way one designates one thing "violating the laws of physics."Is that sort of judgment based on what one subjectively considers "physics?"This is a poor analogy. Show me how to "violate the laws of physics"... you can't, but you can easily violate the laws of some-guys-morality. This is a terrible argument. Consensus throughout humanity isn't required for something to retain objective status, and there are plenty of people who will tell you that they can walk through walls. Does that make the solidity of walls (by definition) any more subjective?Simply claiming you can walk through walls doesn't make it so. If I can freely change morality and chose not to have morality at all then clearly morality is subjective. If it's objective, like the solidity of a wall then I can't simply "chose" to not have morality. If morality is objective built into my brain then I would have to objectively remove that part of my brain to remove morality. If I can remove morality via subjective choices then it only exists in my mind subjectively.He's not "straw-manning" you, he's speaking in general. Don't be so defensive.I'm not "in general" though, I'm an individual. Debunking arguments that I haven't made just because other people might is still straw-manning, assface.P.s. an enemy declaration after one disagreement? Really? Well, if you're so quick to make enemies...
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

No, you have a flawed understanding of what objectivity is. Objectivity refers to objects external of the subject which we refer to. Subjectivity has to do with our own personal experience of things, not the things themselves.You are conflating the thing itself with conceptualization of the thing. They are not the same. Even if all humans were to cease to exist and there was no longer anyone to label or categorize phenomenon, does that phenomenon cease to exist? Do the laws of physics cease to exist if we do? No, the conceptualization of those laws ceases to exist if there is no subject to conceptualize them, but the things themselves do not cease to exist. This is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.While you may be right that not everyone necessarily thinks that murdering is wrong, that does not address the argument of whether or not they are, objectively, immoral. One can believe whatever one wants about objective facts or claims, it doesn't render the fact or claim itself invalid or wrong. For instance, you are welcome to think the world is flat or that gravity doesn't exist, it doesn't render those claims subjective, it just makes you wrong. In other words, you can deny or even be mistaken about objective facts.Your counter "show me an act that is immoral without being labelled immoral" is a red herring and an arbitrary rule set by you. If an act is categorized by certain properties that we choose to call immoral, why shouldn't I call it immoral, why this arbitrary rule? Furthermore, the categorization itself doesn't make an act immoral, rather the objective analysis of the act makes it so. You might as well say "show me a food that is a fruit without being labelled a fruit." I don't have to call it a fruit for it to be a fruit, just understand what the category means.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Why? Why would to respond to a post made literally years ago? I don't want to read through all of this to figure out what I was arguing and what you're objecting to. I don't understand why you people do this.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

This is patently false. 2+2 = 4 is objective, but not material, it is conceptual. Things don't have to be tangible to be objective.The second comment was a complete non sequitir.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Morals are a person's beliefs on what is fundamentally right and wrong, based on their opinion, or the opinion of some religious institution. How can opinion be objective?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

1) I don't want to put words in your mouth, 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.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.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

I don't want to put words in your mouthThen don't.but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.I did not. This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals exist.Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay?Is it okay for us to invade his country, kill 150,000+ civilians and cause incredible damage to infrastructure, just to impose (y)our democratic values upon them? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.At what point did I say that everybody has the right to live according to their own morals?Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?That is why I argued. Please re-read what you just refuted. Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivityWhy?or it proves your belief in objective morality.Why?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Friend, I think a lot of people like you are confused and unclear on this issue and that is why your answer is confusing if not proving my point. Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivityWhy?Because you gave your conclusion: "How can opinion be objective?" (Your opinion is implicitly subjective and therefore not to be trusted, a self-defeating statement.) or it proves your belief in objective morality.Why?because when asked Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?you said : That is why I argued.Also, your strong responses and reaction show you have opinions that you believe are really true, objectively in reality. By your own admission, you say and prove your belief in objective morals so perhaps you should consider changing sides. : ) By the way, sorry I'm confused about your point or distinction: "This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals [exist]." What is the difference? I would contend basically one and the same, both derived from objective truth.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

FriendWe are not friends.I think a lot of people like you are confused and unclear on this issue and that is why your answer is confusing if not proving my point.You don't understand, hence it must be my fault?Because you gave your conclusion: "How can opinion be objective?" (Your opinion is implicitly subjective and therefore not to be trusted, a self-defeating statement.) I didn't give my opinion, I gave my analysis, upon which my opinion is based.because when askedWhy make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?you said :That is why I argued.And that stands.Also, your strong responses and reaction show you have opinions that you believe are really true, objectively in reality.Why do you assume that I think subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive?What is the difference? I would contend basically one and the same, both derived from objective truth.To clarify:The ethics of the morals are not being debated. I.E, we are not discussing whether it is acceptable to kill a man because your morals dictate that you do so (your terrorist example).
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Why do you assume that I think subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive?Well, I suppose you could think otherwise. Of course, you'd be wrong--but it's possible.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Well, I suppose you could think otherwise. Of course, you'd be wrong--but it's possible.So you think that everybody's opinion is wrong, no matter what it may be?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Nope. Only opinions in opposition to reality wrong.'Cause, y'know, that's the definition of "wrong."
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Nope. Only opinions in opposition to reality wrong.'Cause, y'know, that's the definition of "wrong."Your glibness does you no credit. You said that subjectivity and veracity are mutually exclusive.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

And where opinions are consistent with reality, no subjectivity exists. Get it?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

And where opinions are consistent with reality, no subjectivity exists. Get it?Gods man, have you nothing new to say? Endless blathering about facts. We are dealing with morality, not reality. What part of this can you not understand?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

You're not providing any reasoning behind your assertion that morality is anything less than an aspect of reality. You're just saying, "It's a feeling because it's a feeling and feelings aren't objective." C'mon, guy. You must be capable of something more than this.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

You're not providing any reasoning behind your assertion that morality is anything less than an aspect of reality. You're just saying, "It's a feeling because it's a feeling and feelings aren't objective." C'mon, guy. You must be capable of something more than this.All you are doing is masquerading logic as morality and vice versa.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

That's the thing: it's not masquerading when you've submitted no rationale for them to be distinct.Anyway, if we're both being so unreasonable, let's stop being little girls (it may be difficult for you, I know, but I urge you to try your damnedest) and resume the submission of actual arguments.Can you give any reason that anything should be excluded from the force of logical principle?In order to do that, you would have to invalidate logic itself, which would render your reasoning itself a redundancy. Good luck with that.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

That's the thing: it's not masquerading when you've submitted no rationale for them to be distinct.As you have fallaciously declared them to be identical, then you are indeed masquerading one for the other.Can you give any reason that anything should be excluded from the force of logical principle?Because we are not Vulcans, and logic is not the philosophy upon which to build a society, or its morals.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

As you have fallaciously declared them to be identicalThen quit your incessant bitching of, "It's a fallacy, it's a fallacy, you're wrong and everyone else is right!" and prove me wrong, dumbass. Jesus, does someone pay you to be passive-aggressive or what?logic is not the philosophy upon which to build a society, or its morals.Why? If not in logic, then in what? Whim? Nothing?Imagine your proposed society of illogic. Just imagine it. Do you care naught for sense?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Then quit your incessant bitching of, "It's a fallacy, it's a fallacy, you're wrong and everyone else is right!" and prove me wrong, dumbass. Jesus, does someone pay you to be passive-aggressive or what?So you cannot prove them to be identical and so instead try to divert me with a jibe.Why?Because we are not logical beings. We are emotional.If not in logic, then in what?I do not claim to have that answer, though I would place some faith in honour and decency.Imagine your proposed society of illogic.Not placing all of one's faith in logic does not equate to precluding it entirely.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Why can't we be friends? I'm trying to be friendly, understand you, reach common ground and have an interesting debate. Is that possible? I think I am understanding you better and we may have common ground: is it possible that this is difference in semantics; I think I hear you say: "morals" are the confines of subjective men, while "ethics" are external and objectively true? Do I hear that right?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Why can't we be friends?Friendship is not to be given out lightly.I'm trying to be friendly, understand you, reach common ground and have an interesting debate. Is that possible?Parts one and four are."morals" are the confines of subjective men, while"ethics" are external and objectively true?Do I hear that right?No. I said "ethics behind morals". In other words, morals are based upon one's understanding of ethics, though the opposite can be said. I simply didn't want to say "the morals behind morals". Ethics are not set in stone, they are the product of a man's understanding and disposition of/to the facts. For example:A man's wife is murdered. Fact ObjectiveThe man is angry. Response to fact. SubjectiveHe decides that the right thing to do is kill the murderer. Disposition to fact SubjectiveHe tracks the murderer to his home. Fact ObjectiveThe murderer has two children. Fact ObjectiveNow, the man has three main choices:A) Kill him anyway.B) Report him to the authorities.C) Do nothing.Now answer me this, who can decide, objectively, which is unequivocally right thing to do? How could anyone? Is killing your wife's murderer wrong? Who says it is? Why are they correct? What if I disagree? The basic question is, how can anybody say which is the right decision, without employing their own opinion?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

A man's wife is murdered. Fact ObjectiveSure thing.The man is angry. Response to fact. SubjectiveNope. It is an objective fact that the man is angry. Something being a response to another fact, regardless of whether it pertains to human emotion or anything else, doesn't make it any less factual. He decides that the right thing to do is kill the murderer. Disposition to fact SubjectiveAgain, another fact spurred into action by an initial fact. His decision that killing the murderer was the right thing to do? Objective. No one can argue that he didn't decide that killing the murderer was the right thing to do. What we can argue is whether that decision was objectively wrong, objectively right, or objectively carried neither of those values (not necessarily making it subjective by default). I say it's objectively wrong.He tracks the murderer to his home. Fact ObjectiveYep.The murderer has two children. Fact ObjectiveUh-huh.Now answer me this, who can decide, objectively, which is unequivocally right thing to do? How could anyone? Pretty easily, as it turns out.Is killing your wife's murderer wrong? Yes.Who says it is? Morals do.Why are they correct?Logic. What if I disagree? Then you're wrong.The basic question is, how can anybody say which is the right decision, without employing their own opinion?Again, pretty easily. The same way you'd make any other objective distinction: through study and analytic thought.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Nope. It is an objective fact that the man is angry. Something being a response to another fact, regardless of whether it pertains to human emotion or anything else, doesn't make it any less factual.No, it is subjective for the man to be angry. I am disparaging the fact and reporting reaction to the fact.Again, another fact spurred into action by an initial fact.A fact spurred by the emotions spurred by the original fact. That is subjective. His decision that killing the murderer was the right thing to do? Objective.Who is this emotionless entity you attribute these decisions to? I say it's objectively wrong.Why do you say that? Pretty easily, as it turns out.No, you made the decision yourself, making it subjective. Humans are incapable of suppressing their emotions when it comes to such decisions. Yes.No.Morals do.Your morals do. Mine don't.Logic.This is not about the logical decision, but the moral one.Then you're wrong.Why?Again, pretty easily. The same way you'd make any other objective distinction: through study and analytic thought.You can advise him as to what the logical thing to do would be, but you can't tell him morally, without employing your own or somebody else's feelings on the matter.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Why do you say that?Because to take the life of another human being is to violate his inherent right to life. That's immoral.No, you made the decision yourself, making it subjective. Humans are incapable of suppressing their emotions when it comes to such decisions.I made the decision based on an objective methodology. Again, "2 + 2 = 4" does not suddenly and inexplicably become subjective by virtue of the fact that it's a conclusion arrived at by a fallible being.No.Why?Your morals do. Mine don't.My morals? Well, again, my math tells me the same thing universal math does. Does that mean we're both wrong?This is not about the logical decision, but the moral one.The overlap is astounding.Why?Because you reached your conclusion through a faulty rationalization, presumably. Why don't you explain to me why you disagree?You can advise him as to what the logical thing to do would be, but you can't tell him morally, without employing your own or somebody else's feelings on the matter.Again, logic and morality are not mutually exclusive. If you think otherwise, you're thinking of the wrong morality (which would explain a lot about your stance on the subject).
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Because to take the life of another human being is to violate his inherent right to life. That's immoral.To you, not to me.. Again, "2 + 2 = 4" does not suddenly and inexplicably become subjective 2+2=4 is not a moral.Why?Because he killed your wife. My morals? Well, again, my math tells me the same thing universal math does.Mathematics is not morality. The overlap is astounding.Morals do not have to be logical. It makes logical sense to rape women, but most men's morals forbid it.Because you reached your conclusion through a faulty rationalization, presumably. Why don't you explain to me why you disagree?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."Again, logic and morality are not mutually exclusive.Nor are they necessarily juxtaposed. If you think otherwise, you're thinking of the wrong morality (which would explain a lot about your stance on the subject).Wrong morality?