azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I think it is important to point out that relativism, "...is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else." (Swoyer, Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Ethical Subjectivism that you are arguing from is based on "Voluntarism". In this debate, most comes from other views of relativism, mainly that of culture and the individual. You are saying that it is relative to choice where as they say it is relative to culture and the individual. It is possible to combine both the individual and culture. Secondly, the Objective Morality, holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior. These are the textbook definitions of both positions. It seem that you deliberately want to ignore the difference. Especially when I have provided the textbook definitions for them. Ad Honinem is not a good way of dismiss it either.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

To summarize it:Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church, but these facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these two men did. Secondly, During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people-both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans-and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as "I am doing the Lord's work." To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses. Third, The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews-what historians call "Aryan Christianity"-was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time. Fourth, Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution. Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Finally, The Nazis also drew on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting his atheist philosophy to their crude purposes. Nietzsche's vision of the ubermensch and his elevation of a new ethic "beyond good and evil" were avidly embraced by Nazi propagandists. Nietzsche's "will to power" almost became a Nazi recruitment slogan. I am not for a moment suggesting that Darwin or Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler's ideas. But Hitler and his henchmen approved of Darwin's and Nietzsche's ideas.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Hitler also used evolution theory along with Nietzsche's doctrines.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

you seem to allow no room for largely agreed upon good rather than devine good.that women were inferior was largely agreed upon and supported but the bible for all but our very recent history and they are still treated inferior in many cultures. it has changed over time becasue consensus shifted, not because the universal moral good shifted.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"you seem to allow no room for largely agreed upon good rather than devine good"1. Can you explain what you mean by this question? "that women were inferior was largely agreed upon and supported but the bible for all but our very recent history and they are still treated inferior in many cultures"1. We really were not dealing the Bible itself , but since you brought it up, can  you share the evidences rather than making a statement of opinions? "as changed over time becasue consensus shifted, not because the universal moral good shifted"1. There is really no moral disagreements, but factual disputes.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

A Common Core of Moral Values-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There does appear to be significant evidence for a common core of ‘moral’ values across human societies. E.g., if you look at moral codes from widely separated cultures and time-frames, such as those listed below, we do see a significant core of commonality. ancient Jews/ Israelites, the teachings of Jesus the Christ, the Roman Empire’s system of justice, the moral codes of Ancient Mesopotamia, the moral codes in ancient China, the moral codes in ancient India, the moral codes in ancient European societies, the teachings of individuals recognized as great moral leaders in various societies through the ages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Standards-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For instance, the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) hold up standards that we should strive to be fair in our dealings with one another, particularly with those in our society, we should not cause unnecessary harm to others in our society, we should be respectful of others in our society, particularly of our parents and other elders, we should be honest, in particular with members of our society, we should be responsible for our actions, we should be considerate of the well-being and happiness of others, in particular of those we are responsible for. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Standards II-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And being more specific, the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) hold up standards such as do not kill innocent humans; definitions of ‘innocent’ can differ but do have a common core, do not indulge in sexual relations with your daughter or son or infant or mother or father, do not sexually molest your children, do not steal from each other in your society do not lie about each other in your society, do not indulge in casual cannibalism of others in your society, do not indulge in casual physical torture of others in your society etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Common Core of Values-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the vast majority of human societies (from widely separated cultures and time-frames) would agree that we should be willing to protect our families and children from others who might harm them.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

No.You can't say people were bound by similar morals with slight differences adjusting to cultures.Let me give an example.In eastern countries being homosexual is immoral ~(in general)In western countries being homosexual is amoral (in general)Now when we look in the past a bit more we see that in western societies homosexuality was immoral. Now people look on it as if it is ok. It has been fabricated into society, merged into mentalities that it is ok to be homosexual. You are born with a sense of right and wrong but it's your surroundings throughout life that develop on those ideas.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I. Define: Amoral vs ImmoralAccording to the Oxford Compact English Dictionary, amoral with immoral are some of the common confused words. "Amoral with immoral: amoral means 'not concerned with morality', while immoral means 'not conforming to accepted standards of morality."Question: Which of the two are you really referring to?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

There I changed it now... you haaapppyyyy????? (sarcasm)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

A successful debate does involve understanding both nominal and real definitions. What I gave you is the real definition. It's a pain, worth it, right? :) If you gave me a nominal, than I would have to ask your definition of it, tracking? I am going to ponder on what you presented as I will do with atypician's. Also, I encourage you to read my re-posting of my summary with includes the position I am arguing from, definition of truth, etc. Sounds good?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Did you read, my re-posting of my summary with includes the position I am arguing from, relativism, definition of truth, truths about truth, etc? As well as, the categories?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

INTRODUCTIONI think there is at least six areas of confusion which occurs when arguing from the relativism position. In this case, you are arguing from the "cultural relativism" which would be "the theory that culture shapes beliefs, provides concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior."[1]. Philosophical Argument: Sociological ReasonI submit that culture can sometimes be wrong and therefore would fall short as an adequate method to justify beliefs. The Nazi’s for example had a culture that accepted the murder of all Jews. The U.S. had a culture that accepted slavery. North India has the culture that accepts the anti-conversion law. [2] Response to Western Countries being homosexual is amoralSince you have accepted the definition of "amoral" which is, "'not concerned with morality"concerning homosexuality, it is false to make such conclusion since not all western countries uphelds it. It is an assumtption at best to state it as "western countries" and "general" than some. According to the Gallup Poll, one of the western countries, namely the U.S., does not in general see homosexuality as moraly right. It states that, "Americans may remain intransigent regarding the moral acceptability of homosexuality but attitudes about its legality have made a tidal shift. Confusion-An Absolute Morals vs. Moral DisagreementsNow, what you are doing is confusing them by pointing out a controversial issue. Just because there are different opinions about homosexuality doesn't mean morality is relative. There are easy and hard problems in morality just as there are in science. "The very ability to make moral assessments is actually evidence that objective moral values exist." [3] ConclusionWhile our beliefs are shaped by our surroundings (sociological reasons: culture, society, parents, friends,) does not necessarily mean that we have to virtually accept literally everything as true or fact since these have been somtimes wrong. [1] "Cultural Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .[2] http://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-conversion_legislation_in_India [3] InquireTruth (Quoting from a person)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Good post.TBH My instinctual reaction to the question is that yes there is a universal moral law - in general about what is right and wrong. But when my thoughts go deeper I find many many excuses from this...I'll try and write a strong argument asap.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

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: No

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

1. No, it does not. It is not evident that it is given, much less from a god.2. Yes, many morals are taught to us by our parents.3. Morals come from ancestors that began to form tribes. 4. Morals were needed to establish trustworthiness and allow individuals in a tribe to all prosper. today, they serve a societal purpose. Exhibiting a lack of morals ostracizes an individual from a society because it demonstrates that individual cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with accepted standards for behavior.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Well if their is, then it is every Christians position to assume that all people who think seperatley to their ideoligies are inherentley evil which is what they think, and why they are mad.Why is it that I believe that abortion is ok while someone else thinks that it is wrong. Why do I believe that euthenasia is moral and someone else thinks otherwise. I'm not evil, and I'm not blocking out any moral judgement. So their cannot be any universal moral law.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?No- if that were the case, I feel there would be more consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my beliefs are shared by everyone, but others choose to dismiss them, and I know what I feel.2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?Not merely our parents. All of society. Parents, peer groups, media, etc.3. What is its source? Where does it come from?Social pressures. presumably values had practical benefit at first, and then became enshrined in tradition. Of course, those like "Do not murder" are still most relevant, which could explain why they are near universal. 4. What is its purpose?For us to coexist together.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wg66gWttf-cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA305#v=onepage&q&f=false  read it you fool hardy masses
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

although it isnt proven i agree with creationism i mean where did the monkeys come from
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

Yes, i love this. God the supreme being created everything both living and non living. In the Bible, Genesis 1. We were made to understand how the history of creation goes. Is better we read the Bible and get the fact than to go all about speaking fallacies.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

God the supreme being created everything both living and non living. You have no evidence for such an assertion. In the Bible, Genesis 1. The bible is not scientific evidence any more than spider man comics are proof of spider man. We were made to understand how the history of creation goesWe were made to understand the story of Genesis? No we weren't. Is better we read the Bible and get the fact than to go all about speaking fallacies.You have no way of knowing that the bible contains only facts. In fact, there are numerous inconsistencies, falsehoods, and contradictions in the bible. No one is speaking fallacies here. You are the one relying on a book 2000 years old to have all the answers you will ever need.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

I want to tell you that all these we are saying is our believe. Yes, i mean our faith, we just know we were being giving birth to and someone also gave birth to our own parents. The question is who are the first parents. If you dispute the fact of the Bible.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

The question is who are the first parents. If you dispute the fact of the Bible.The bible is not a fact, first of all. The bible might contain a few facts, but that is not because it is "divine" by nature. Who are the first parents? That would depend on what you mean by parents. Are you talking about the first homo sapien parents? Or are you talking about the first parents in regards to life on earth? For the first question, I do not know. But I don't need to know, for that question is not really important for it does not add validity to the bible if I cannot answer that question. The answer to the second question would be whichever species developed the means for sexual reproduction.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

It seems you know the and you just trying to be blunt.You said the Bible is not a fact, you later now said it might contain a few. Why are you not stable. Anyway even though am talking about the homo parents or the parents regarding to life on earth, because that you fail to answer the question all because you don't know it.This is another question for you. Can evolution have sexual reproduction?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

It seems you know the and you just trying to be blunt.You think I'm trying to be blunt? I'm not sure what you mean. Blunt about what? I realize you are not a native english speaker, it is difficult to understand what you are typing. You said the Bible is not a fact, you later now said it might contain a few. Why are you not stable.You said this: If you dispute the fact of the Bible.You spoke of the bible as if everything in the bible were a fact. I said no, the bible itself is not a fact. It might contain a few facts. But that does not mean that the bible itself is a fact, or that everything in the bible is true. I am being perfectly consistent here. Anyway even though am talking about the homo parents or the parents regarding to life on earth, because that you fail to answer the question all because you don't know it.It's difficult to understand what you wrote. Which one are you talking about? Homo sapien parents? Or parents to the first organism capable of sexual reproduction? Either way I don't know who was the first parents. But what you do not realize is that it doesn't matter who the first parents were. Evolution is still true even in the absence of an answer for your question. This is another question for you. Can evolution have sexual reproduction?Seeing as how humans are products of evolution, obviously yes. Many animals and other organisms are capable of different types of reproduction, including sexual.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Creationism

Anyway am sorry for every error that i made. Am already sleeping on that very day. See i don't want to argue blindly here. Is not that i have agreed to your point but i want you to tell me more about evolutionism.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: Evolutionism

Fact?1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.b. A real occurrence; an event: c. Something believed to be true or real: Fact?
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

Creationism through Evolutionism : )
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

"God made man in his own image""this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" - upright, not a monkey running along with his fists on the ground, the man is UPRIGHT, his two legs on the ground, walking with his hands at his sides. "Inventions" - well, I have to say that evolution certainly fits into that category.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

""this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" - upright, not a monkey running along with his fists on the ground, the man is UPRIGHT, his two legs on the ground, walking with his hands at his sides."Since the very heart of the concept is that organisms transform from one form to another, this is perfectly in keeping with evolution.""Inventions" - well, I have to say that evolution certainly fits into that category."Evolution is, like any other concept in investigative science, an observation (actually a vast family of observations), not an invention.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

"Since the very heart of the concept is that organisms transform from one form to another, this is perfectly in keeping with evolution"Wrong. God made man upright and apes/monkeys may stand upright but do not walk upright, they tend to run/walk on all fours with their hands fisted. Why would God make man and tell us that He made man upright then somehow the men evolve into apes then back to men? It makes no sense and, lets face it, that didn't happen. Why also would Moses say that God made "man" if it was an ape that God made? Furthermore, Eve spoke to the serpent and spoke words to Adam that Moses tells us she said, wouldn't an ape be unable to speak our language? Thus, you are wrong in saying that it is "perfectly in keeping with evolution". Finally, we are told that God made man in His image; I very much doubt - and I speak for the majority of the thousands of Christians that there are on this planet - God is a big hairy ape that walks on all fours."Evolution is, like any other concept in investigative science, an observation (actually a vast family of observations), not an invention."No offence, but its an invention, just like we are told. And you my friend have fallen for the words of fools.
Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: creationism

"Actually there are over a billion Christians on this planet, don't sell your religion short"Out of the over-a-billion Christians, I am aware that many of them are not true Christians, hence my reason for saying "thousands". Just because one calls him/herself a Christian that does not make him/her one; it is faith, obeying God and many more aspects of Christianity that class you as what you are."Support your claim outside of the realm of circular reasoning. If the Bible is perfect, then the world should be filled to the gills with evidence supporting it"Follow my other current arguments and you will see I'm doing just that."So by all means, please present something that doesn't start with "In the Bible it says"What do you wish me to present? Atheists often ask Christians to prove the bible is true without mistakes. I could disprove the alleged discrepancies in Genesis if you like, or perhaps something else? Maybe I could disprove evolution (:As for the sites you gave me, they were rather irrelevant. One had a game you could play where you tell the differences between the given limbs, another didn't have a follow on page after introduction, another was pictures of bats telling me stories about their wings, another (as all sites that have been sent to me have done) showed no evidence but stated many dates. "I mean no offense to our ancient ancestors, but by modern day understandings, they were the fools."Wrong, they were in no way a fool; the bible definition of a fool is a man without God who despises wisdom and instruction - the bible is filled with wisdom and instruction thus the servants of God that wrote it were quite the opposite of a fool.P.S. - You never covered this point that I stated in my last post "Why also would Moses say that God made "man" if it was an ape that God made?" You were saying that the statement Moses made of man being upright was in perfect keeping with evolution. I then disproved what you said and went on to ask this question.