azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

I am sorry that I destroyed your argument so bad that you decided to be as dumb as possible. I will try to take it easier on you next time.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Lack of a response to anything I said sounds like more of a cop out if anything. Hopefully we can meet debate other again. Until next time
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

You didn't respond to anything I said. You just refused to understand the definitions of the words we are using and asked meaningless questions. Everything you said was an attempt to make sure you stay ignorant of the topic. I can explain exactly where you went wrong in each of your statements, but each statement you made was just a dumb question.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

So objections to what you're saying is evidence that what I'm saying is dumb and I want to stay ignorant? It looks like all your replies are simply what you believe to be true. Is it really that much of a problem for me to question your beliefs?
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

You didn't object to what I am saying, you just objected. You ignoring what I am saying is evidence that you want to remain ignorant. All of your replies are you actually saying you believe something to be true instead of pointing out what is wrong with what I wrote. You aren't questioning my beliefs. You are questioning beliefs that no one has. Your questions do not make sense in response to my argument. You don't know what murder, theft, and rape are. Look up the definition of murder.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Can you give some examples of what you're saying? I just want to know why you're thinking what you're thinking
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Killing someone can be justified, therefore not a murder. Some places think killing anyone that enters your home is not murder. Some places think that there had to be a threat on your life in order for it to not be murder. This is subjective morality on killing. If killing is deemed morally wrong it becomes murder by definition. The words you are using are describing actions that have already been judged morally.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

All those examples you gave have to do with a difference in understanding, not morality. I do agree that killing CAN be justified, but it still holds true that unlawful killing is wrong regardless of whether or not I happen to kill someone in self defense. Thats why I was saying earlier that its an issue of understanding. Its understood that if the other person attacked first, then they are the ones with the charge. Even with that though, it would still be considered murder if he were to kill me because its understood that him killing me would be murder
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

How do you know it is unlawful? By applying morality. Why are laws different? Subjective morality. You saying that immoral killing is wrong just means that morality exists, not objective morality.Its understood that if the other person attacked first, then they are the ones with the charge. Even with that though, it would still be considered murder if he were to kill me because its understood that him killing me would be murderNot true. In Florida you can attack someone first and as long as that person gets the upper hand on you at some point you can still kill him in self defense and not be considered murder.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

How do you know it is unlawful? By applying morality. Why are laws different? Subjective morality.The problem with the first half of this is that you're assuming an objective morality. If everything was truly subjective then there would be no need for things like laws or law enforcement of any kind whatsoeverYou saying that immoral killing is wrong just means that morality exists, not objective morality.Except that immoral killing is going to be wrong regardless of where you are in the worldNot true. In Florida you can attack someone first and as long as that person gets the upper hand on you at some point you can still kill him in self defense and not be considered murder.I'm not sure I believe that theres a law that allows an attacker to be considered the victim if they are overpowered. How about you show me and I'll believe you
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

The problem with the first half of this is that you're assuming an objective morality.No, I am assuming morality. If everything was truly subjective then there would be no need for things like laws or law enforcement of any kind whatsoeverFalse. If there was objective morality there would be no need for laws. Laws are required for groups of people to agree on the correct subjective morality. If objective morality existed there would be no disagreements, and therefore no need for laws.Except that immoral killing is going to be wrong regardless of where you are in the worldMorality tells us what is right and wrong. You are making the claim that some kind of morality exists throughout the world. I'm not sure I believe that theres a law that allows an attacker to be considered the victim if they are overpowered. How about you show me and I'll believe youTrayvon Martin. Castle law.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

This sounds unnecessarily restrictive.If you're going to just assume it exists without evidence - just go ahead and do this with god (what you're doing anyway) and skip trying to justify the constituent parts in the same way.So whats true for each individual is true for everyone?No - there are (nearly?) no universal morals, and universal morals aren't definitively objective.So its only ever right to take care of children if I get paid to do it?No - it won't universally be done without being paid.Which part of the world allows things like murder, theft, and rape?Many actually.Thats evidence of leniency, not subjective moralitySome places consider it more or less moral - hence subjective. What defines killing vs murder? an objective standard or a subjective one? war, mercy killing, abortions, self-defense, the death penalty, etc. no clear delineation of right/wrong and certainly not a universally accepted one.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

If you're going to just assume it exists without evidence - just go ahead and do this with god (what you're doing anyway) and skip trying to justify the constituent parts in the same way.You do know what I was referring to right?No - there are (nearly?) no universal morals, and universal morals aren't definitively objective.Except you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrong. Having a moral law implies a moral law giver to which you can compare an action to to see if its moral, making it objectiveNo - it won't universally be done without being paid.According to who?Many actually.Which one?Some places consider it more or less moral - hence subjective. What defines killing vs murder? an objective standard or a subjective one? war, mercy killing, abortions, self-defense, the death penalty, etc. no clear delineation of right/wrong and certainly not a universally accepted one.An objective standard would differentiate killing vs murder. There is a clear delineation of right and wrong in those situations. Murder is always wrong, but theres a different understanding of what constitutes murder. Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Except you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrong. Having a moral law implies a moral law giver to which you can compare an action to to see if its moral, making it objectiveThat isn't true at all. Humanity can be the "moral law giver", but the existence of said giver doesn't make it objective. You are presupposing the validity of the moral law giver, under the assumption that it's god.Objectively, murder involves killing. Subjective, murder is killing that we consider wrong depending on the circumstances.  There is a clear delineation of right and wrong in those situations.No there isn't, which is why you have trials to determine if any given killing is murder, and why you often have people disagreeing with said rulings. Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.That's exactly what it does, so long as there lacks evidence of an objective criteria to determine objective morality, which we lack.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

That isn't true at all. Humanity can be the "moral law giver", but the existence of said giver doesn't make it objective. You are presupposing the validity of the moral law giver, under the assumption that it's god.Humanity being the law giver is what would make morality subjective because they would be their own standard. Anytime someone thinks that something is wrong, they would have to import a moral law. Even if humanity is the moral law giver, they are imposing an objective moral law on others. They would be saying that something like unjust killing is always wrong regardless of what someone else might think or feelObjectively, murder involves killing. Subjective, murder is killing that we consider wrong depending on the circumstances.Murder is always wrong. What people try to figure out are the circumstances surrounding why someone was killed to figure out if someone was killed unjustlyNo there isn't, which is why you have trials to determine if any given killing is murder, and why you often have people disagreeing with said rulings.Trial rulings aren't evidence against objective morality. The trials are there to determine whether or not the person being charged with the crime is being justly convicted and if so, how far the punishment should go. They hold to the fact that murder is objectively wrong, but give people different punishments depending on how involved they were. Disagreements with the rulings don't play into moralityThat's exactly what it does, so long as there lacks evidence of an objective criteria to determine objective morality, which we lack.It is always wrong to kill someone unjustly. How someone was killed can be subjective between cases but that doesn't change the fact that unjustly killing someone is wrong. Also, saying we don't have evidence for something presents a problem. It shows that on your end, you were either intellectually dishonest, not showing due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think the evidence for or against something is weak or poor, thats different
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Humanity being the law giver is what would make morality subjective because they would be their own standard. Indeed.Anytime someone thinks that something is wrong, they would have to import a moral lawOnly if you believe that moral laws exist. Even if humanity is the moral law giver, they are imposing an objective moral law on others.No they aren't, and that's a direct contradiction of what you just said two sentences ago.They would be saying that something like unjust killing is always wrong regardless of what someone else might think or feelNo, their declaration that X is wrong would be predicated upon how they might think or feel, which is what makes it subjective.Murder is always wrong.That's because murder is defined as being unjustified. That's like saying "Wrongful killing is always wrong". Despite that, this statement only holds true in our society. There exist plenty of contexts in which unjustified killing is not viewed as wrong.What people try to figure out are the circumstances surrounding why someone was killed to figure out if someone was killed unjustlyAnd the different means of determining that through different cultures backs up what I am saying.Trial rulings aren't evidence against objective morality. The trials are there to determine whether or not the person being charged with the crime is being justly convicted and if so, how far the punishment should go. Yes, all of which is predicated upon a social understanding of what a given society has determined is "right" or "wrong". Nothing objective involved.They hold to the fact that murder is objectively wrong, but give people different punishments depending on how involved they were. Just about nothing in our legal system makes any claim about objective morality. Disagreements with the rulings don't play into moralitySo when you have people claiming that rulings were morally wrong, that has nothing to do with morality?It is always wrong to kill someone unjustly. That's because we define "just" as being right, so you are saying that it is always wrong to wrongfully kill someone. Not only is that tautological, but it is still predicated upon your social understanding of the right and wrong times to kill.How someone was killed can be subjective between cases but that doesn't change the fact that unjustly killing someone is wrong.Again, that is not a universally held stance, and there is no objective criteria by which we can judge that to be true.Also, saying we don't have evidence for something presents a problem. It shows that on your end, you were either intellectually dishonest, not showing due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think the evidence for or against something is weak or poor, thats differentWow, way to be an asshole. So instead of providing evidence for this objective criteria, you just implicitly insult me.If this criteria is so obvious, then provide evidence of it.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Indeed.So you're saying we can't trust anyone?Only if you believe that moral laws exist.The fact that we are having a conversation about right and wrong proves that there is a moral code that people go by which would then point to a higher lawNo they aren't, and that's a direct contradiction of what you just said two sentences ago.Except that they are. Like I said earlier, each person has a moral code. The thing is though, they think that everyone else should follow it. That would mean that they would think that their moral code is objective and they are the objective law giver. The only thing that people do to make it subjective is that this idea applies to everyoneNo, their declaration that X is wrong would be predicated upon how they might think or feel, which is what makes it subjective.Someones thoughts or feelings might be different, but that doesn't justify doing something wrong.That's because murder is defined as being unjustified. That's like saying "Wrongful killing is always wrong". Despite that, this statement only holds true in our society. There exist plenty of contexts in which unjustified killing is not viewed as wrong.Thats not evidence of unjustified killing. Thats evidence of people trying to justify what they did, but that doesn't mean that unjustly killing someone isn't still wrongAnd the different means of determining that through different cultures backs up what I am saying.Just because different cultures have a different way of looking at things, that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. Its always wrong to unjustly kill someone. What different countries find out is if the person was unjust in their killingYes, all of which is predicated upon a social understanding of what a given society has determined is "right" or "wrong". Nothing objective involved.The fact that they are even discussing right and wrong shows that there is an objective right and wrong that exists outside of themselves. Otherwise, trials would be completely unnecessaryJust about nothing in our legal system makes any claim about objective morality.The fact that we have a legal system to determine whether or not what someone did was right or wrong shows that there is an objective moralityAgain, that is not a universally held stance, and there is no objective criteria by which we can judge that to be true.Except that it is though. No where in the world will you find murder to be legal. What you find is a different understanding of what is considered murderWow, way to be an asshole. So instead of providing evidence for this objective criteria, you just implicitly insult me. If this criteria is so obvious, then provide evidence of it.You yourself said that we lack evidence for this subject. I did provide you evidence in the replies that I gave you. If you honestly think that there is no evidence for it, then really are just being intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. If you think that the evidence I gave you is weak or poor, that is different than saying that there is NO evidence whatsoever
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Also, the criteria for which morality is measured by would be the Christian God
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

Also, the criteria for which morality is measured by would be the Christian GodThat isn't a criteria. The criteria you would use would be the Bible, and even then that is an inherently subjective criteria, not an objective one.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: No

You do know what I was referring to right?You were saying that objective morality should just be assumed.A) No, it shouldn't.B) Even if you assume it until there is at least some evidence against - there is some evidence against - moral dilemmas.you need to import a moral law to say something is morally wrongYou only need an objective moral law in order to say something is wrong "objectively" - not to say that something is subjectively wrong.According to who?If you think every single person in the world would volunteer to watch your children without getting paid - ask 10 people and get back to me.Which one? (RE: murder, theft, and rape)murder: When is it murder vs just killing - war, abortion/self-defense, mercy killing, death penalty, animals for food/sport, etc. Saying murder is wrong because it is wrong to murder is just a circular tautology.theft: necessity e.g. bread for your starving family, stealing secrets/spying or stealing from enemies generally, eminent domain, etc., etc.rape: spousal rape is allowed in many countries with no repercussions (ref, ref), if a person is a child molester and they go to prison and are raped there, is their rape just as morally wrong as the child rapes they committed? if a lion rapes a lioness is it objectively wrong?Just because understanding is different, that doesn't make morality subjective.It makes objective morality either non-existent or unattainable - thus humans are still left with only subjective morality.
Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

You were saying that objective morality should just be assumed.Thats not what I was referring to. Cartman said that nothing exists by default until you prove it exists. My comment that it was unnecessarily restrictive was referring to this.You only need an objective moral law in order to say something is wrong "objectively" - not to say that something is subjectively wrong.You need a moral law to say anything is wrong no matter how smallIf you think every single person in the world would volunteer to watch your children without getting paid - ask 10 people and get back to me.I asked for evidence, not a requestWhich one?I was actually referring to the countries you mentioned that there were parts of the world that allowed the things you mentioned. My bad. I should have clarifiedmurder: When is it murder vs just killing - war, abortion/self-defense, mercy killing, death penalty, animals for food/sport, etc. Saying murder is wrong because it is wrong to murder is just a circular tautology.War-murder still applies here. There can be a case for someone justly killed someone else. The question is whether or not the killings were justAbortion/self-defense-self-defense is a poor reason not to get pregnant or to get an abortion. Most pregnancies happen out of willful consent to sex so they basically brought it on themselves. The rest that didn't consent still have a responsibility to the child who is not attacking the motherMercy killing-more often than not, mercy killing is taken as murderDeath penalty-this can have its problems. However, this is the only one where I can see what you mean by murder vs just killing someone. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't still people who are killed unjustlytheft: necessity e.g. bread for your starving family, stealing secrets/spying or stealing from enemies generally, eminent domain, etc., etc.Stealing is always wrong regardless of whether or not someone thinks its necessaryrape: spousal rape is allowed in many countries with no repercussions (ref, ref), if a person is a child molester and they go to prison and are raped there, is their rape just as morally wrong as the child rapes they committed? if a lion rapes a lioness is it objectively wrong?Just because its allowed without any repercussions that doesn't make it any less wrong. The jail persons rape is just as morally wrong as their child rape. As bad as rape is, animals aren't subject to moral laws since they aren't accountable to anyoneIt makes objective morality either non-existent or unattainable - thus humans are still left with only subjective morality.That doesn't follow. If I don't understand theft, does that make it nonexistent or unattainable? What about with murder or rape or anything else in the world?