azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Some actions are objectively detrimental to that life, while other actions enhance. These things are objectively "good" and "bad".subjectively good and bad.Fighting is detrimental to life. But yet humans/animals fight. By your logic, it is objectively wrong to fight. Animals will fight knowing they might not possibly survive. Because of it being detrimental to life then one should not do it. Yet of course this is false because fighting is used for surviving. You stated earlier that an objective moral would persist through generations for prolonged life. But why would one commence an action that is problematic with survival? I forgot, because that does not mean that they are destined to follow an objective moral. But that can't apply because most male species of any kind fight. A lot to the death.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Fighting is detrimental to life.Fighting is not inherently detrimental to life. As carnivores, violence must be done to acquire food. Engaging in sports can be life affirming, this would include combative sports.As violent creatures capable of rationality, though commonly subject to irrationality, we bring violence to each other. The initiator of violence is being irrational. The defender against violence is reasonably protecting himself. Both are fighting, only one is wrong.most male species of any kind fight. A lot to the death.Animals don't have a code of conduct. Humans are deficient in instinct. This is why morality is important. People do lots of stupid things, People also die a lot. The objective morality would be that code of conduct which best suits individuals to society (since as social creatures we value society). Some morals fit, some don't.Claiming that there is an objective morality isn't a claim that people are moral
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

People do lots of stupid things SubjectiveThe initiator of violence is being irrational. SubjectiveHumans are deficient in instinct. This is why morality is important. Subjective. Humans survived and multiplied when there were no "moral codes". When humans were barbaric they still lived successfully. I believe (not 100% sure) that your idea of "objective" morals came into play with religion. A lot of your ideas on objective morality stem from religious ideas.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

There can be no subjective experience without objective reality. By stupid, I mean "not conducive with rational thought". The initiator of violence is being irrational based of the premise you laid out in the post I was responding to. Violence is often detrimental to ones own life, therefore the initiator of the violence is the irrational actor. To support life, the defender must respond with physical force (not always). This simply means that fighting is not inherently irrational, though irrationality may have caused it.Humans survived and multiplied when there were no "moral codes"Morality is a code of conduct. It is a standard of action. Without instincts, people must have a standard of action. Properly responding to "obviousness" as you call it requires a standard of action. Humans can survive on a code of conduct that is not the best code of conduct available. A better code of conduct results in a better life. The use of words like "best" and "better" are used to relate to the valuation of life and living (quantity and quality). The are not subjective in the context of a stated goal. example: If you want to get somewhere quickly, a car is "better" than a bike.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

the initiator of the violence is the irrational actor.Not always. One can initiate violence for a rational reason. If I kill you because you walk to close to my house and I had a feeling I was in threat, that is rational. Animals will bite/sting/maul if you get too close. Humans are animals. Humans defend when they feel threatened. For you to say it is wrong or irrational for someone who initiates violence based off of their own rationalizations is your opinion.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Context is important, though doesn't prove a subjective nature.If I kill you because you walk to close to my house and I had a feeling I was in threat, that is rationalIt is not necessarily rational. The context would determine the rationality of your action. The principle is the same. If I actually AM a threat, then you are defending yourself.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

A child walking near a lion is not a threat from your perspective but to the lion it is. Basically a threat to ones home, whether you think it is or not, is up to that person to decide. It could be a 10 year old girl, if one thinks she is a threat then one would rationally assault her.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If you are irrationally afraid of absolutely everything, then everyone would be a threat to you and it wouldn't be rational. We can conclude if it is reasonable to think that someone is a threat. It's not so subjective
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I agree. Violence to defend self or others is very rational.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If you want to get somewhere quickly, a car is "better" than a bike.That sophistic exemplification was a prevaricating sly one. Obviousness as I stated before. But if a car wants to get to the other side of the street and there is traffic then a bike would get you there quicker.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

But if a car wants to get to the other side of the street and there is traffic then a bike would get you there quicker.That's true. If the value in question is "getting somewhere quickly", then context can show that two opposing decisions adhere to the same value. This is an example of how objective morality would work in practice.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I like to ask relativists if they are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

One can be a moral relativist without being an absolute relativist.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Can you explain some more, please? .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

A moral relativist holds morality to be relative. An absolute relativist would hold all things relative, including but not limited to morality. So... a moral relativist could hold morality relative but claim that there objectively absolute facts, whereas an absolute relativist would hold both morality and the idea of absolute facts to be incorrect. Does that clarify?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

This is confusing. Can someone believe that morals are subjectively relative, but not objectively relative?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I cannot actually think of anything that exists both subjectively and objectively, so I would have to say no. That said, if it were possible for something to exist simultaneously as an objective and subjective phenomenon then I would affirm you question. If the thing exists as an objective absolute (i.e. in reality it is a constant universal), but is perceived to be a subjectively relative phenomenon (i.e. it is perceived to manifest in many ways) then it would be both. That said, the discrepancy would be a consequence of misperception.All of that said, I think my larger point may have been poorly conveyed. What I was attempting to get at was that someone can think morality is relative, but not consider all things to be relative (e.g. they could consider gravity to be absolute). Does that make more sense?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Okay thank you. That makes sense. .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

That is because you're a plank short of two short planks :)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I'm glad you didn't leave, Atrag ;)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Punching a baby is a universal wrong. Sometimes there are exceptions in which it might be considered morally okay but there is an assumption that it is not in every society (I am assuming a little when I say every, I realise). There there must be something objectively wrong in that act and the interesting thing is arguing what that is.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Your assumption is not an insignificant one; you are asserting universality from a self-professed fallacy. If there are exceptions, either circumstantial or by the individual, then the moral is not universal and consequentially inconsistent with any objective constant. Further, it is a leap of logic to extrapolate from a single moral to morality as a whole (which is what this debate subject discusses). Even if you could demonstrate one moral to be actually universal, this would not speak to the entirety of morality.Additionally, I would contend that nothing is objectively ever "wrong" or "right" in actuality. (Dis)advantageous or harmful/beneficial, certainly; but the moment we attach a moral value judgement our perception becomes subjective.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If the principle that allows for punching the baby is that same principle that forbids it under normal circumstances, then you have an objectively based morality. It would never work if morality is so rigid as to not account for context. If you found the underlying principle here, I am sure it would apply to many other moral situations. You may begin to have something like an objective morality.but the moment we attach a moral value judgement our perception becomes subjective.The moment you hear noise it becomes subjective. We should remember that subjective doesn't necessarily mean false. I think I said this above, but if you created a code of conduct based on these principles you are laying out, it would eventually be considered wrong/right good/bad etc. Subjective reality doesn't exist without the objective one.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

If the principle that allows for punching the baby is that same principle that forbids it under normal circumstances, then you have an objectively based morality.Nice assertion; now explain why that is the case. You have not only assumed that it is the same principle at work, but that the principle itself is objectively derived. Further, this in no way counters my contextual observation that if there is an exception to the moral statement that punching a baby is wrong then that particular moral is not a universal moral (even if it did belong, as you claim, to a universal morality).The moment you hear noise it becomes subjective.The objective existence of the noise does not become subjective, though our perception of the noise is itself subjective.We should remember that subjective doesn't necessarily mean false.I never claimed that it did.I think I said this above, but if you created a code of conduct based on these principles you are laying out, it would eventually be considered wrong/right good/bad etc. Subjective reality doesn't exist without the objective one.I addressed this in my other response to your more thorough presentation of this argument on this debate.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Nice assertion; now explain why that is the case. *A different example to illustrate. Imagine the moral principle is "getting somewhere", this is the "good". It would be right to choose a bike over walking to get down the street, it would be right to choose walking over a bike to get across the room. The same principle directs one to opposite conclusions based on context. Contextual difference isn't the same as subjectivism.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I think I addressed this in my two other replies to you on this debate. Please correct me if you think differently.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I think you argued with HarvardGrad about the difference between "right" and "correct". Unless you mean that you responded to my example in which case, I don't believe there is a response. That particular post is a bit of a side topic about context and subjectivity. I haven't read a response concerning that either. Side Note: At some point I'm going to copy all the threads on this page and respond in one post. I've contacted Andy.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Some actions and behaviours just are bad as they are things that almost everyone with the exception of psychopaths and sociopaths can agree are bad. Physically abusing someone unprovoked is bad as any one with a healthy mind reacts badly to it and feels empathy for the victim and feels hostility to the perpetrator.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

and why are these things bad?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Nope .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Wow your words are so deep how do you do it
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Objective divine inspiration .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Funny guy .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Morals aren't tangible, empirical, physical things. They are concepts and practices, much like numbers.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

objective- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased- dictionary.comThat definition never said that something objective has to be tangible. It probably has to have some basis on something tangible, in order to be based on fact. But no where in that definition does it say that something objective is tangible, physical, or empirical.Therefore, it can be a concept or practice, such as a mathematical concept, a computer science concept, a comedy routine, etc.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

To quote Merriam Webster:1ob·jec·tive adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\      &nbsp;: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelingsphilosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real worldgrammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions---To quote your provided definition: "based on facts;" meaning exactly what I said before; tangible, empirical, and physical.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

No, based on facts doesn't have to mean that its true. Its only physical if its true, and even then it doesn't really have to be an object. Technically, its objective to arrest someone for killing JFK. That's an objective. Morality would mean justice for that person in that case. If you arrest the wrong person, you are dealing with objective morality.It sounds like it fits your logic, but let me put it this way. I think "objective morality" doesn't have to literally mean "objective morality." It means morality based on the objective. The objective is to arrest the right person. The moral question is "do they deserve it."If you don't agree with me, and think my objective morality is inherently not objective morality, then we've made progress in this debate. You can only have morality based on a situation, and that situation is composed of objective things, places, and people.So logically, IMO, either all morality is objective or it isn't.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Correct. I always give exact comparison of 'time' and 'morality.' Problem is when I say time does not exist people think I speaking some sort of "philosophical hypothesis" when in fact time does not exist! But that is another topic I will post tomorrow and see who are the intellectuals and who are the... You know.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

The inability to explain an intellectual complexity is itself a failure of the intellect. Denying the self-evident and the scientific on the basis that it just is, and then saying that whomever disagrees is "...you know" stupid, doesn't make you more intelligent, it just makes you a less intelligent jerk.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Intellectuality is in the conscience. We cannot explain consciousness but we are consciously aware of its existence. I never said you cannot explain time. I said that you cannot physically describe time. Simple-minded (non-intellectual) people are incapable of understanding what I mean when I say time does not exist. So that is why I made that statement. You are exacerbating my statement by saying stupid. Complex intellectual incapability does not make someone stupid. That was rather petty of you to say that. There is a reason ones intellectuality can be complex. If it was so easy to complexly think intellectually then it wouldn't be called complex now would it? And intelligence and intellectuality are different(what grade are you in?) The whole "jerk" comment in regards to "...you know" by "you know" I mean intellectually incapable which, as I said before, does not make you stupid. For instance, I have a 177 IQ. 1/7,130,000 have an IQ this high. That does not mean the 1,340,000 people are stupid because it can not be helped. I do not believe anyone (except retards for medical reasons) is stupid. Do not interpret.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

The inability to explain an intellectual complexityI was referring to a different debate where you said that you could not explain things that are intellectually complex. Maybe I did jump to conclusions about ..you know. But I'll go ahead and tell you now, if you can't make reasoned arguments then no one here will care about your screen name or your IQ. Some of your arguments hold water, not one of them concerning time. When your response to reasoned arguments is simply that I am intellectually incapable, you are loosing on intellectual grounds. Your appeal to personal authority falls flat when crowds of authority and reason itself disagree with you.EDIT: Restructure
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I was referring to a different debate where you said that you could not explain things that are intellectually complex.I can explain them. The person I am explaining to can or cannot intellectually understand my meaning. Certain explanations necessitate complexity. I am refraining from being esoteric by saying I cannot explain.I'll go ahead and tell you now, if you can't make reasoned arguments then no one here will care about your screen name or your IQ.I cannot make a reasoned argument will someone intellectually incapable of even understanding my point. In regards to the screen name I did not create the screen name for "authority" you choose to imply authority because of the name. Harvard is just a school to me. I have met plenty of simple minded students in Oxford who could not last 5 minutes in a debate with me. You have never heard me invoke my IQ or School in an argument. Just intellectuality. P.S. factually you IQ measures your critical thinking and reasoning skills, which means my reasonings are 9/10 sensible.So someone with an average IQ saying that someone with an extremely high IQ reasonings are not sensible would be questionable. Not to be boastful but there is a reason when someone has a certain IQ they are a certified genius.Genius = exceptional intellectual
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

I cannot make a reasoned argument will someone intellectually incapable of even understanding my point.That is similar to saying "if you don't know, then I can't explain it"Simple-minded (non-intellectual) people are incapable of understanding what I mean when I say time does not exist… in fact time does not exist!Countering an axiom with an anti-axiom. A= -A. That was the sum total of your reasoned argument.Assuming your target audience's inability is unreasonable. Using this assumption to neglect to mount an argument is worse than unreasonable, it's intellectual dishonesty.factually you IQ measures your critical thinking and reasoning skills, which means my reasonings are 9/10 sensible.This was your argument against my statement of your lack of reasoning skills. Your IQ will not make unreasonable arguments become reasonable. Quoting your own IQ is not proof that your logic is sound. It may have other unrelated indications.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

That is similar to saying "if you don't know, then I can't explain it"It is similar to a physicist explaining advanced physics to an American elementary school. They will most likely have not a clue what he is talking about. It does not mean they are stupid. There knowledgeability in physics is not at that level yet therefore his explanations would lead to more confusion. When I do explain you still do not get it, and I simply said I cannot explain to someone intellectually incapable because of their lack of understandings of my explanation. Intellectuality requires someone to think. You can know everything and still not be a intellectually competent.This was your argument against my statement of your lack of reasoning skills. Your IQ will not make unreasonable arguments become reasonable. Quoting your own IQ is not proof that your logic is sound. It may have other unrelated indications.You say lack reasoning skills but yet understand the correlation of IQ and reasoning? You missed what I said completely. I never said my IQ would make unreason = reason. I said the probability of my reasonings being unreasonable is low. My IQs correlation with logic is positive. The higher the IQ the more logical someone is.It does not mean my logic is 100% accurate, no, but it does mean my logic is least likely to be anything but. Brief note; I try and oversimplify up here to not cause confusion. When I am debating with my professors I talk how I normally would because they can understand my "complex" syntax. So when I talk to everyday people I try and talk to them on a level of their comprehension. By doing that I may "mess up" sometimes but that is only because if I say it to them my normal way then they would be highly confused. This is why I refused to talk to most kids high school because they felt "inferior" or "dumb" when I tried. So now I make a habit of oversimplification. I will get one of my favored professors to create an account so they get my meaning across if I cannot seem to.