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

My definition of values doesn't seem like a moral definition because I am using it to premise moral definitions. Except for your view on values, all of your statements about things that are simply an empirical reality are true, which is why I am arguing for an objective morality. (What I refer to as the fundamental value of life requires more than just pain avoidance, that was just an example). My position is that if the "is" is true for living things, then certain "oughts" must follow. Not because I feel that way, but because it's a property of life.To illustrate from a different debate where you argued against the necessity of life; I would say that Life is the source of necessities. Life is not itself necessary to the universe, it is part of it, it has necessities, and nothing else does.Somewhat of a Side Note:I'll take it a step further and explain my position on the emotional and subjective aspects of morality. Whatever your values are, you acquire an emotional corollary for each. This is true even when you are not aware of your own values (many people aren't). Emotions are immediate responses to internal values. Because people feel emotions before they have considered their values, they often think their emotions should determine their values (it just feels wrong), when in reality their values triggered their emotion in the first place.EDIT: Clarification: Emotions are immediate responses to stimuli that relate to ones values.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

A RESPONSE FROM THE NECESSARY DEBATE:My understanding of objectivity being independent of individual thought is that it's truth is not impacted by individual thought. If something is a property of consciousness, then it is a true property in reality. Being a property of consciousness wouldn't make it subjective, only the experience of that property would be. Furthermore, my definition of value doesn't require consciousness, only action. Humans can act consciously or otherwise. Similarly, we can experience values consciously or otherwise. Regardless of subjective awareness, we DO act on our values. that by no means proves that you/we are objectively valuableValuable to whom? It seems you require value from somewhere beyond the existence of value? We (the living) are the source of values.If something exists only in our minds then it is subjectiveVision exists only in our minds.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Good and bad have no existence in the objective world, but they do exist as concept through subjective perceptions.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

What is "moral" simply depends on how we perceive it. For example; a high ranking Nazi officer would most likely see Hitler's actions as just, while a Jewish prisoner in a concentration camp would see Hitler's actions as unjust.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Concept of morality is subjective, yes; can there be an objective moral though?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

What exactly do you mean when you say an objective moral? Do you mean some sort of action that is always absolutely good or evil? If that is the case then my opinion is no, as what is "good" and "evil" simply depends on what we perceive it to be. Also, I am saying that morality itself is subjective.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Do you mean some sort of action that is always absolutely good or evil? replace "good" and "evil" with "right" and "wrong".Also, I am saying that morality itself is subjective.100%. But I was asking is there a moral that can be objective. Basically, is the statement above flawed.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

replace "good" and "evil" with "right" and "wrong".Why? Both are systems of value projection.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

This sun being out may be good for one to see. Getting caught by a tornado may be bad. Neither or can be right or wrong because it just happens.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

That is what I thought you meant. As I understand the terms "good" and "bad", however, they are also used in the projection of subjective value. It is possible for them to have an objective meaning, but because they can also (and usually do for most people) bear a subjective value projection it seems nearly as prudent to avoid their usage as it does to avoid using "right" and "wrong".
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Syntactically structure "good" and "bad" in an objective manner. (Without equivocation)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I think there are limits to how much you can divorce "good" and "bad" from their subjective value associations, even when explicitly stating that you are using them in an objective sense. That association is so strong in most peoples' minds that it cannot be so simply divorced. Personally, and for that reason, I prefer to use terms such as (dis)advantage and harm/benefit when discussing the objective.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Do not prevaricate, I simply asked for an objectively formulated sentence with the terms "good" and "bad" because you stated that you can use them in an objective manor. I would like exemplifying proof.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You rather misunderstand my argument, I think. The nod to potential objectivity was a light concession to what I understood your initial perspective to be (i.e. that "good" and "bad" are preferable to "right" and "wrong" because they describe what "just is"... something objective). Beyond that, the statement was made in light of some definitions of the terms (provided) which do not utilize subjective value language. If you read my posts in full, you would know that I have already indicated that I do not consider it possible for the subjective value element to be wholly disassociated from the terms "good" and "bad". Which returns me to my original question: why advocate for the use of "good" and "bad" in place of "right" and "wrong", when both are problematically subjective?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

1+1=2 <- always right. 1+1=3 <- always wrong. If you do not like the idea then you might say it is bad that 1+1=2, but it cannot be wrong.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

1+1=2 is not "right"; it is accurate. 1+1=3 is not "wrong"; it is inaccurate.Your argument in no way addresses my point that "right" and "wrong" carry strong subjective associations, and that they are therefore similarly fallible when being used to describe the objective (words such as accurate are more well suited to that end).
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I am suggesting that "right" and "wrong" would be more suited for the argument. It is obvious that "good" and "bad" will always be subjective. To say: 1+1=2 is not "right"; it is accurate. 1+1=3 is not "wrong"; it is inaccurate., is absurd seeing as "accuracy" can range in value with "correctness". Which would therefore implicate that 1+1=2 can possibly be incorrect. Yet we know it is false to say 1+1=2 is 'incorrect'. Which would then mean that 1+1=2 is true and correct as a "fact". And seeing as how this fits the definition of "right", then it would therefore be suited to use that sort of terminology in such situation.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Is there anything to should be valued for its own sake? If there is, then there is a fundamental "good". If there is a thing that is intrinsically valuable, then you can determine that destroying that thing is in all cases, wrong.The tricky part is showing that something holds intrinsic value.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

We can have a morality that is based in objectivity, and with an objective goal, but this morality itself not an objective truth.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

What if the objective goal is inherent in humanity. If it is a property of humanity to act on ones own interests (life, well-being, etc), would a moral code based on principles that are in ones interests then be objective? (Consider the difference between objective properties and subjectivity. If something is common to a category of entities, it isn't subjective, it is a property.)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

That is not specific enough. Are we concerned with humanity's survival, well-being, happiness, and freedoms as a collective? And if so, which ones take higher priority? Believe it or not, not all of these can be simultaneously achieved.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

We are concerned with said values for the people within a given society. Concerned with doesn't mean forced. I would expect a proper morality to allow for rational values to be pursued within ones self and concerning others. Simultaneous achievement of these or any host of values isn't necessary for an objective morality, so long as the potential is provided for. A code of conduct can't achieve, that's up to the conductor
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

It being up to the conductor makes it subjective. A conductor choosing to follow a moral makes the moral a subject to choice.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

A code of conduct is like a map. An objective morality would be like an accurate map. It won't actually take you anywhere, you have to do that yourself. Morality provides guidance for action. To avoid rigidity a morality should be based on principles, not particulars. Proper execution of these principles would be experienced subjectively, though the principle remains an objective standard.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

But again, to which goal in specific? Furthermore, why are any of these goals necessarily a"good" thing in the first place?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments. At such, in my perception, i believed that there is no such thing as "objective morality"
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

baby? infants are innocent. We should not hit them hahahahahahaOMG what's wrong with me today !~ lol dude, tell you a secret, i just meet my crush....
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

In self defense. .
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Killing is not necessary for one to protect. I understand injuring them, but to kill them is over the top.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Sometimes it is. There are many possibilites of life threatening situations, and some of them require killing for survival.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

For example? Tell me when killing another human is needed for survival. If you are capable of killing, you are capable of making another go unconscious.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

The two of you are twenty feet away... you both grab a gun at the same time... your only option is shoot to kill!
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

There are ways to shoot someone and render them uncapable of killing you without you killing them. Many duels end that way. Andrew Jackson survived many duels, and lost a few, however none of them died.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

So... you're willing to risk shooting them in a place that will render them unable to shoot back.... What if you fuck it up? You're dead!!!
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

If you do fuck up your dead. However was it necessary? There shooting to kill you. What they're doing is unjust, therefore the kill was unjustified. If you do mess up, then you could have messed up when shooting to kill. Since it was your mess up, it was both yours and the killers fault.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

WAT .
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Okay, A suicidal madman has 3 old ladies, 4 children and 6 bunnies tied up and is about to explode a bomb killing himself, the old ladies, children and bunnies... BUT he says if you kill him, he'll let the others live... what do you do?
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

That example was pure stupidity. Simple render them uncapable of blowing himself up. Since he will let them live if you kill him, then there is no way for him to kill everyone else if he cannot do something to trigger the explosive. Simply cut his arm off if there is a button for the bomb, or knock him unconscious. There are many ways to avoid killing him
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Simply cut his arm off if there is a button for the bombBecause everyone knows how simple it is to sever someones entire arm plus the bone in one single slice. You are so very intelligent.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Thank you. I appreciate that comment. I do believe I am quite intelligent compared to others. But all jokes aside, if I can't defend myself without killing, why would I enter such an instance in the first place?
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Wat. Unless you're mentally insane, you never CHOOSE to enter into a life threatening situation.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Going into war is generally what you choose, unless your drafted. But if their in war as a sniper, obviously they chose to go into that profession.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

But what if your country is being threatened by being blown up by an atom bomb? Then your country would have to go to war.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

That's why I said "drafted". When you're drafted, you're forced to go into war anyways.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Soooooo, then it would be acceptable to kill .......
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

OMG. How about you read the argument i made in the No section. It explains stuff.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

I really dont need to read it to know you are wrong. If someone had an explosive vest and was going to blow you up and a whole bunch of other people and you had a gun WOULD YOU SHOOOT HIM.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

If he had an explosive vest and you shot him, it would've blown up either way.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

In the head ...............
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Killing may be acceptable, however it may not be justified.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Ok close enough .
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Nope! You're wrong again. He has all of them tied up in a small room underground and no one knows where he is... he leaves you a remote control that if used kills only him... otherwise, he kills the children and bunnies.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

since when has there EVER been a case where that happens?
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

That doesn't matter
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

If you are capable of killing, you are capable of making another go unconscious.You are assuming the circumstance is both people using bare hands. What if the other person has a gun? What if it is a terrorist with a suicide vest? If you had a gun, wouldnt you shoot them? What about in the military? If someone is trying to snipe you, and you have a sniper, would you take the time to use however many full clips it would take to shoot them in the trigger finger? Heck no! The chest is the largest target and snipers are trained to shoot there. Any other choice is plain stupid.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

It is not necessary to kill them, because if you are a sniper you are trained with accuracy. Since it is not necessary, you do not have to, and killing someone when you don't have to is unjust.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

What? You are trained for accuracy but not stupidity. Do you know how hard sniping is? You would be dead by the time you hit them in the finger. They would be aiming for the chest, a much better shot, and you would be going for the arm/hand. They would hit you before you hit them. The only logical choice is to kill them.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

If you were unable to stop them from killing you whether you had killed them or not, it would be yours and the killers fault. You would be too incompetent to protect yourself from dying, and so you died. The point is there are ways of avoiding death and ways of avoiding killing. If you chose to kill instead of avoid it, that would be unjust and therefore not justified.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

No, YOU would be to incompetent to protect yourself. Any other reasonable person would SHOOT THEM IN THE FRIKKIN CHEST. I bet you couldnt hit them in the arm from 1000+ yds. Thats why you shoot the chest, because its a bigger target. I would be competent enough to prevent my death. But you would get killed before you could shoot the other guys arm.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Just tell me this. You have a gun, and a terrorist pops out wearing a suicide vest. What would you do? There is no other way but to kill him. You're not the flash. You move just as fast as he does. If you shoot the arm and miss, or its the wrong arm, or even if you do hit his arm and he drops the remote, he can pick it up and blow you up.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Self defence is defined "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack"Of course you can try to injure them, but what if they are multiple of them,Im sure in that state you dont think to just injure them, but you think the best way to protect yourself is to exterminate them.I clearly support that we can kill in self defence if they is no other way,and the chance to be killed is high. Any other killing is not justified, and should be punished to death sentence!So killing in death sentence is justified as wellWhat is the difference of a murderer and Saddam Hussain, both of them are same and killed, one maybe in the name off land,the other was stealing and killed....etc if you kill one person its as big than you kill the hole humanity , and therefore the accountability should be equal very every human killed the punishment should be death sentence.Human cannot just justify the killing of 1 person a murderer in hold up and give jail sentence of 30 years, and on the other hand hanging a dictator because he killed millions.My point is every human being which is killed is valuable, the quantity doesn't matter
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

If you do self defense, sometimes you can't control what you actions do to the person. For example, when you kick them in the stomach just for self defense, you cant control what their body's reaction would be, to what you did.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

In certain circumstances like self defense, food, or for the greater good of people.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense. For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival. Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Killing is not necessary for one to use self defense.Not always, of course. But sometimes, when defending yourself of loved ones, accidentally or unfortunately a life may end.For food, we have animals, vegetarians, and vegans. Cannibalism is not deemed necessary for survival.Check your question. You asked “is there a way killing is justified?”. You did not specify killing humans (and we won't get into the debate that humans are animals). Thus, you have indirectly admitted killing can be justified.Where there are places that people can be at, there are also sustained life forms. And for the greater good of people, if you could kill Hitler before he committed genocide, would you? Most would answer yes, but that means that he has not done anything wrong yet, and so you are the one committing murder.Not necessarily. I can gather evidence to demonstrate the harm he would commit if he continued. Once he was about to conduct his plan,.yes I would kill him if I had the power to.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

Killing by definition is depriving one of life, however by society, animals are not in the placing as "one" and so that is not killing. It is survival. If you had evidence that he was about to conduct the plan, then he would have gone to jail. That was attempted genocide, and people go to jail for that. Not to hell/heaven/afterlife or whatever you prefer to believe in.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

Killing by definition is depriving one of life, however by society, animals are not in the placing as "one" and so that is not killing.And by society, at one point “person” only meant white people.It is survival. If you had evidence that he was about to conduct the plan, then he would have gone to jail. That was attempted genocide, and people go to jail for that.No he wouldn't have, he was the system. If it were an option, it would be my first before having to kill him. Not to hell/heaven/afterlife or whatever you prefer to believe in.What does this have anything to do with our discussion?
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: No

The end was just an extra. And now society does not mean "white people". Also, you had evidence. Why would you need to kill him. Just have the government take him into custody. If they killed him, they would be committing Murder, however it was not in your authority to have him killed by your own hand.
Debate: Is there a way killing is justified?
Side: Yes

The end was just an extra. And now society does not mean "white people".Actually I said “person”, but “society” works too. And thank you for proving my point. It doesn't mean that anymore, what does that tell you?Also, you had evidence. Why would you need to kill him. Just have the government take him into custody.Because Hitler was the government. If they killed him, they would be committing Murder,Murder is the illegal killing of a human being. If he was found guilty in trial and was sentenced to death (under the condition the death penalty exists), it's not murder, because it's not illegal. however it was not in your authority to have him killed by your own hand.Under the circumstances with Hitler, yes, it would be anyone's authority to defend the victims. And sometimes, the only way someone can be stopped from harming is to end their life.