azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Being capable of or able to does not mean destined to. People never have all the information up front. With more information they can figure it out. People dieing in a really big storm one time does not mean that humanity is doomed.I'm glad you concede that modernity is the key to population control. Even in modern society people choose to have children. They find it fulfilling. If all people found kids to be a burden, we already wouldn't be here. Regardless, people are having less children because the likely hood of the one or two they have surviving is so high...thanks to modernity.one may argue that people seek those entertainments to get away from their problemsEntertainment "can" be an escape for someone, but entertainment as such is necessary to well-being. Try living life without any entertainment.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Being capable of or able to does not mean destined to.There is some incoherency here. If an objective moral persist through our generations because of "evolutionary factors" (you said humans developed objective morals for survival perseverance ) then why does a large quantity of people not seem to be "destined to?" The western population is not decreasing despite immoral behavior. If lions learn to start climbing trees because it entailed there survival a little longer would some lions (once this trait becomes generalized) not climb trees? Unless, of course, it was not necessary. You say objective morality is not destined as if it can be optional. But waaait. If it is optional, then that means that person, most likely, did not believe in that moral. But waaait. If needs to believe in a moral then it is not so objective now is it?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Good argument, well done.First, humans didn't develop objective morals. Morals are still left undefined and very subjective to a very high degree. My point is that an objective morality exists and must be discovered/recognized, and then passed on. Some morals are actually the best objective morals, but people need to figure which ones and why.An objective morality would exist regardless of belief. You could discover it over time, and that's what we have done to some degree, though not explicitly. The extent to which a society recognizes and accepts the objectively best morality, is the extent to which their livelihoods are enhanced.People can't survive without some code of conduct. But they can survive with a pretty poor one.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

My point is that an objective morality exists and must be discovered/recognized, and then passed onWould you say that people need to recognize that destroying nature should "objectively" be a moral wrong doing?An objective morality would exist regardless of belief. You could discover it over time, and that's what we have done to some degree, though not explicitly.You can not use "belief" then go on to say "discover" if you use that for the western part of the world. They do irrational(I'm not saying immoral) things based off their religion. For them to "discover" it being, as you say, "objectively" wrong necessitate an eradication of religion. Do you see this as being possible? Especially when they are indoctrinating their children. What about America(and other countries) stopping with all the needless killings of animals and destruction of forestry. Do you see that happening? The way countries are setting up it is required for more destruction.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Would you say that people need to recognize that destroying nature should "objectively" be a moral wrong doing?Wouldn't we have to kill all the beavers? Nature isn't destroyed, it's altered. To alter your environment to such an extent that it becomes unlivable wouldn't be to good for humans.You can not use "belief" then go on to say "discover" if you use that for the western part of the world. They do irrational(I'm not saying immoral) things based off their religion.Note that I said "to some degree". My use of the word belief was in reference to objectivity ("regardless of belief"). My guess is that an objective morality could be practiced by the religious and faithless alike. I know many religious people who are only irrational on Sunday morning.What about America(and other countries) stopping with all the needless killings of animals and destruction of forestry. Do you see that happening? The way countries are setting up it is required for more destruction.I don't necessarily see that stopping. The world was round before anyone knew it. There can be a best possible path that no one follows.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Wouldn't we have to kill all the beavers?  Verry asinine and petty question. You know there is a significant difference between an occasional beaver taking down a small tree versus humans cutting down 80% of the Earths natural forestry.  My guess is that an objective morality could be practiced by the religious and faithless alike. I know many religious people who are only irrational on Sunday morning.You misunderstood. I meant religious people do (as you would say) objectively moral wrong doing for their religion. Not religious people doing "immoral" things just in general. So if a religious practice is objectively immoral then how can objective morals be practiced alike?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

So if a religious practice is objectively immoral then how can objective morals be practiced alike?A particular immoral practice would have to be banned. The U.S. has "freedom of religion", but not if your religion requires human sacrifice.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

This is why I said on the west to avoid conflict in the argument.The U.S. has nothing to do with my question. I am not using the U.S. as the facilitation of objective morality because the U.S. is not fundamentally relevant to overall objective morality.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Let's try this again without the extended distraction from the point.If a way of behaving is necessary for survival then it would be called instinct.If the organism doesn't "just know", then it isn't simply instinct.Your second paragraph is mostly assertions about which concludes with the end of all life. Since I know that you believe this is happening, and I am not arguing that an objective morality is practiced, the potentially absurd statement is mute.humans can interact naturally without morals and would still survive.Humans need a code of conduct, especially under conditions of interaction. This internalized code becomes morality. What I am arguing is that humans need a code, not necessarily that they use the objectively best code. I have argued (poorly) elsewhere concerning non-human animals. I don't consider morals concerning other animals since I have no way to know. However, some people have studied quite and "Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ PS I didn't read the entire article.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Who says we need a code of conduct? That is a subjective ideal. All humans need to do is reproduce and raise the child then repeat. We do not need to interact cordially amongst one another underneath a code. I am still failing to see how this 'COC' necessitates objectivity...?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

To reproduce and raise children one must live long enough. Humans don't have a sufficient set of instincts to live long enough. We have to use our intellect to survive, it's our primary tool. A COC provides guidance to the intellect by categorizing action. It is necessary for life as a human. As such, COC developed naturally.My position is that holding Values is a property of the living, not a subjective choice. As living humans we must have a COC since our means of living is our intellect. When the COC is internalized (and it always is eventually), we call it morality. How we feel about a COC is subjective, the fact that we need it is fact of reality. The notion that there is a better (and ultimately best) conduct for living is the idea of an objective morality. It does not require that we know what the best conduct is.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

On your first part; explain "long enough". These "moral codes" that you assert cause people to believe that humans under the age 18-12 should not have children. But it appears to be the exact opposite in nature. When an animal is sexually able to reproduce, they do. Also, most species leave the 'nest' at that time (with some exceptions: orcas, female lions, etc..) So I'm trying to say, when you say 'long enough', just because we believe living as old as we do seems reasonable, does not make it necessary. So are you supposing that we need to live long enough as in 'raise a child till they're 18' long enough, or....?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

These "moral codes" that you assert cause people to believe that humans under the age 18-12 should not have children.Let's be clear, I have not asserted a moral code. Furthermore, I have never denied that moral codes develop over time, in fact that's part of my argument. The morally accepted age for reproduction has varied and shouldn't be taken out of context of survival conditions.I thought it was a given, but I'll clarify. Go ahead and re-read my statement with this:"Humans don't have a sufficient set of instincts to live long enough to reproduce."
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Yes there is such a thing as objective morality.Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the past to have accepted it as a morally right thing.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.But doesn't the qualifier 'owning another human' render this a subjective case? If we were referring to a non-human creature with human intelligence, would the morality governing slavery cease to apply? I believe that it would not. What about cases of slavery where neither the master nor the slave is human? Several species of ants practice slavery with the remnants of conquered colonies, as an example there. What is a beast of burden, if not a non-human slave?I would agree that human slavery is wrong, but I maintain that this is subjective morality, rather than objective morality. I assert that for it to be a truly objective system of morality it would have to apply regardless of whether or not humans are involved- and as I've demonstrated, it doesn't.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

But doesn't the qualifier 'owning another human' render this a subjective case?No. It wasn't a qualifier, it was an example.If we were referring to a non-human creature with human intelligence, would the morality governing slavery cease to apply?No. it was but one example. Slavery would still be objectively wrong in that case. As would rape and mutilation for instance.What about cases of slavery where neither the master nor the slave is human? Several species of ants practice slavery with the remnants of conquered colonies, as an example there. What is a beast of burden, if not a non-human slave?Yes, slavery would be objectively wrong in these accounts as well.A sign of immorality for those who consider it acceptable on a moral basis.I would agree that human slavery is wrong, but I maintain that this is subjective morality, rather than objective morality.In what way is human slavery morally right?I assert that for it to be a truly objective system of morality it would have to apply regardless of whether or not humans are involvedAnd it does. I provided one example originally but I assert that slavery on all accounts is objectively wrong. - and as I've demonstrated, it doesn't.You haven’t demonstrated that it doesn’t apply, merely provided an example of where slavery can be perceived to occur in non-human subjects. I will maintain that slavery is objectively wrong on those accounts as well.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

No. It wasn't a qualifier, it was an example.Ok, fair enough- just making sure.No. it was but one example. Slavery would still be objectively wrong in that case. As would rape and mutilation for instance.I agree that slavery would still be wrong in this case, just not that it would be objectively wrong. This was mainly to test your qualifier/example used previously.Yes, slavery would be objectively wrong in these accounts as well.Why is a human using a beast of burden objectively wrong?Why is a colony of ants taking slaves from a defeated colony objectively wrong?What is the basis for objective morality?Why, then, is it not considered an immoral act when an animal kills a human over territory, as compared to when humans kill one another over territory?In what way is human slavery morally right?Irrelevant. I can agree that human slavery is subjectively morally wrong under any and all circumstances, while still rejecting the idea of objective morality.And it does. I provided one example originally but I assert that slavery on all accounts is objectively wrong.Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, specifically insofar as it applies to slavery, is it not?You haven’t demonstrated that it doesn’t apply, merely provided an example of where slavery can be perceived to occur in non-human subjects.I've demonstrated cases of slavery in areas where human morals have generally not been seen to apply. An animal does not gain informed consent from it's mate, but we don't consider it to be immoral the way we do when humans commit rape. An animal may kill another of its species over territory, food, or mates, and we don't consider it immoral the way we do when humans commit murder. An animal may enslave another animal, but suddenly we consider it immoral in the same way we do with human slavery? What? I will maintain that slavery is objectively wrong on those accounts as well.And if you feel it is objectively wrong, you have a rather tough burden of proof to handle, I'd say.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Just want you to know that I've read your post and I plan on giving a proper response it's just that I've been very busy recently.I try to respond later tonight, this is an important topic I think.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

No worries at all. I was offline for a day or two and was pretty delayed responding to a couple myself.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

rapeIf a person goes to jail for child molestation and gets raped in prison - does our society generally perceive the 2nd rape equally as immoral as the first? Wouldn't our disparate attitude indicate subjectivity? and mutilation for instanceIf your goal is great tolerance for pain or great marathon runners mutilation could be seen as a good idea for achieving your goal.The goal is always a subjective one based on a person's biology (evolution through present day), and their experiences (including their societal ones).
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.Why?Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.Why?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Man, I could have saved myself a lot of typing ;)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

They have been demonstrated to be so through the course of history.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

How so
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Through examining the effects these behaviors have on the constituents.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

And why were these effects bad? If they resulted in harm and pain, so? Why is that necessarily "bad"?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If they resulted in harm and pain, so? Why is that necessarily "bad"?It’s not. Not necessarily. Good/bad, right/wrong are just concepts used in the topic of morality which are assumed to be self-evident when debating topics such as these. In this context, people may disagree on what is to be considered right/wrong, good/bad but there is an overall understanding to the nature of badness/goodness etc.We have certain agreed upon terms we use which allow for effective dialog and meaningful discussion. If you feel the need to argue semantics or the extremely philosophical then perhaps someone else would be interested. Personally, I prefer a more practical discussion.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

And they are used within the concept of morality.I am not arguing about semantics, I asked why any of these things are necessarily bad or good. If morality were objective, we'd be perfectly capable of explaining why they are objectively bad/good.If you wish to prove that morality is objective, you must justify the premises.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I am not arguing about semantics, I asked why any of these things are necessarily bad or good.If we are not arguing semantics, and we can concede that goodness and badness exist within different states of mind/wellbeing without needless philosophizing about the “nature” of these concepts, then I think we can maximize our discussion on moral objectivism. Why are things like harm and pain bad? I would argue that it’s because there are states of mind/wellbeing along a continuum where neither harm nor pain exist. Why consider moral objectivism? Because it describes a reality where the various states of mind/wellbeing are determined and constrained by natural laws within the environment where the physical owner/perceiver of that mind/wellbeing exists. Furthermore there are demonstrably right and wrong ways to move between a continuum where bad and good states of mind/wellbeing exist. Not only is this fathomable within the context of rational interpretation, it is empirically measurable that certain behaviors, actions, cultures, opinions, etc. are erroneous or unconducive to achieving a “good” state of mind/wellbeing. There are political persuasions, economic systems, religious laws, etc which have observable detrimental effects on the wellbeing of their constituents. The evidence is obvious that certain ideas of right and wrong lead to unnecessary suffering yet for quite some time we have had this widespread notion that ‘everyone’s opinion counts.’ Now, you wouldn’t say this about other observable information. You wouldn’t say that one cultures idea of gravity is just as relevant or true as another culture’s. Its dishonest to pretend that science has nothing to say about the way we ought to behave and to infer that what one culture considers right another culture might consider wrong, but both are valid on how people ought to behave.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

The evidence is obvious that certain ideas of right and wrong lead to unnecessary suffering yet for quite some time we have had this widespread notion that ‘everyone’s opinion counts.’Since we're arguing within the premise that suffering is "bad", I would agree. But if morality is something that is fundamentally objective, you should be able to prove why suffering is a bad thing in the first place.Its dishonest to pretend that science has nothing to say about the way we ought to behave and to infer that what one culture considers right another culture might consider wrong, but both are valid on how people ought to behave.But this is, again, entirely dependent on what we fundamentally see as "wrong". If we're arguing from the premise that suffering is wrong, then yes, science can tell us how to act. But morality needs an end goal (in this example, to reduce suffering), and I don't see how any end goal can be objectively proven to be the right end goal.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

should be able to prove why suffering is a bad thing in the first place.Suffering is bad in a few ways. First off it's bad by definition. A person can't want to suffer and have it still count. Suffering is to be avoided. Second, it's bad based on evolution. Mammals have nervous systems to help avoid that which is detrimental to life. When they are unable to avoid, they suffer. The nervous system is an objective property of human beings. Thus, the avoidance of suffering is an objective trait, a universal human value. It should be considered that morality is for living human beings. The avoidance of suffering is required for the maintenance of life. If life isn't valued, then you aren't part of the moral equations since you're dead.EDIT: To clarify, basic values are properties of living things. They aren't valuable outside of the context of living things because that is outside of the context of value itself. Similarly, you can't discuss "red" outside of the color spectrum.I don't see how any end goal can be objectively proven to be the right end goal.The feelings of right and wrong that we associate with morality are only produced when a specific code of conduct is internalized. While a given code of conduct may have a number of goals or fundamental values, the most basic goal concerns life. If you want to argue that life isn't an objective value, I would ask who values it. The answer is living things. Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going. If are not an organism with automatic mechanisms or instincts to do what needs to be done, you need a code of conduct. As humans we naturally internalize ours and call it morality. Thus a code of conduct, which we eventually turn into morals, is a required aspect of the human life, which is the objective end goal.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Suffering is bad in a few ways. First off it's bad by definition. A person can't want to suffer and have it still count. Suffering is to be avoided. Second, it's bad based on evolution. Mammals have nervous systems to help avoid that which is detrimental to life. When they are unable to avoid, they suffer. The nervous system is an objective property of human beings. Thus, the avoidance of suffering is an objective trait, a universal human value. It should be considered that morality is for living human beings. The avoidance of suffering is required for the maintenance of life. If life isn't valued, then you aren't part of the moral equations since you're dead.You've only demonstrated that this is harmful to the individual undergoing suffering. You have given me no motivation to actually care about said individual as an outsider.So what if it's harmful? Why should I care? Why is it being alive or happy objectively a good thing?If you want to argue that life isn't an objective value, I would ask who values it. The answer is living things.not necessarilylook at many predatory animals, genocidal dictators, etc.life is only valued by those who posses it, and even then, they usually only tend to value their lives.Specific actions must be taken to keep any given life going.why