Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 11

For

• OK, so now my opponent's rebuttals are these: 1) My arguments only prove the notion of God 2) The same thing could be applied to the flying spaghetti monster 3) My argument presupposes God First, let me say that if a notion about existence is true, then it follows that it…
• First, sorry for writing "objects" and not "objections." Second, I'd like to thank my opponent for his excellent quick rebuttal. My opponent's two contentions may be summarized as follows: 1. Existence may not be necessary of something that is perfect 2. Only proves IF…

For

• Thanks for your response! I see your argument where you explain the logical fallacy galled tautology. Well, is my explanation a tautology? For the people yes. In my argument I don't claim objective morality so whatever is good to a person, is good to that person. But since I…
• My apologies for leaving the impression that I blamed you for intentionally misleading the debate. I meant to say that that is what your argument seemed to do. I never meant to imply that you were somehow intentionally sabotaging the debate. Lets start by reacting on my…

For

• In my reading of the analytic/synthetic division, I have come to the conclusion that I do not know as much about as I thought. From what I do know about, I reject it's validity on the basis of it's own terms. That being said, I have decided to drop this debate, though I am…
• Thank you for the debate. I look forward to this. I will note that, presuppositionalists mainly deal with the second kind of necessary being as described by Con. This is shown in the transcendental argument for God's existence. Of course, we will speak of a being that must…

For

• My opponent has forfeited. How sad.
• This is so bizarre; I would have said the exact same thing a week ago.My arguments are simple:1) Gravity certainly exists 100%2) Gravity is illogical3) God can exist 100% certainty1) People do not recognize the world as existing without a god2) The evidence, to them, shows that…

For

• "Why did I come here through evolution " Mutations and natural selection. Both of which have been observed in the case of sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell blood cell mutation gave them a survival advantage over those with round-shaped red blood cells because sickle cell…
• "Wikipedia, last visited Jul. 16, 2017." Not the most reliable source "my current life situation" Well you came here by a process called evolution from primates. Basically a common ancestor between us and other primates evolved into different species and we most likely evolved…

For

• Atheist DO have morals.
• It doesn't matter what the morals do to the world it just matters that they are morals. Also secular humanists seem to have pretty good morals and secular humanists are atheists. The truth is, Atheists are atheists because they dont want to follow religious law i.e.…

For

• I thank CON for his reply. CON stated, "Many skeptics examine the evidence for God and become theists." I do not question this, but in the context of this debate, what is of importance is why they became theists. Specifically, if they applied their skepticism to the god claims…
• I hope it will be informative and entertaining, both for the two of us, and also for anyone else who may follow it. Since we are using the definition of atheism as "without belief," we can say two things: 1) atheism is the starting point, because every infant lacks belief at…

For

• Imagine the perfect unicorn. The unicorn exists at least in the understanding, and if it is perfect, then it must exist.The fact that FSM cannot be necessarily true is precisely the point. And your assumption that a FSM without pasta can be considered better shows why you must…
• Despite my inclination towards believing your response and your profile entirely are meant as some form of humor, I will respond. No one is debating that god is not possible. There is no way an atheist can prove god does not exist. However the possibility of something being…

For

• Thank you for sharing your perspective. I argue against the atheist moral judgment against religion not from a Christian moral superiority standpoint but from one that comes from my own views of the atheist ideology. 1. Many times I find that atheist make claims of a better…
• Atheist should be able to make moral judgments on any religon, No matter how bad, Simply because they have no basis for their morality other than their opinion. Opinions are subjective and as such one atheist can say the Christian God is wrong for doing 'A, B and C' and another…

For

• Thanks to Con for the debate. == Pro Case == Note that Con does not contest my definition of objective morality. (1) The alternatives to physicalism are dualism and idealism, both of which involve the existence of a separate "mental substance" which is distinct from matter.…
• Sorry for the forfeit. I forgot this debate had a 24 hour time limit. == Pro Case == Objective morality is essentially a set of transcendental prescriptive facts regarding the actions of human beings. Just by examining the definition of objective morality, three points in favor…

For

• My position is that if God does not exist, then human life is devoid of ultimate objective meaning value or purpose, regardless of our subjective opinions to the contrary. Important points to note: 1. I am not stating that all atheists are bland and depressing nihilists who…
• Look at the topic of the debate: it is "if God does not exist life has no ultimate objective purpose value or meaning". Showing that we can live happy and subjectively fulfilled lives, without believing in God, does nothing to show that life has any ultimate objective meaning…

For

• I will attempt defend the position that logical absolutes depend on the existence of god. Logical absolutes include- law of noncontradiction, law of identity,the law of excluded middle 1st round will be arguments, 2nd,3rd will also be arguments but in each round the debater…
• Now I will go over some of the problems I have with his rebuttals. My opponent is trying to create a difference in Logical absolutes and doesn't really do a very good job. As even in his case a square circle would not exist. I am not talking about the symbols, even without a…

For

• It's seen in everyday life. Us humans complain. Now,unless someone has no roof over their head, no family, no food, then they are most likely not going to see the importance of what they already have. Maybe for example, a teenager wants to go out with friends and their parents…
• I'm not saying that I don't. when I say everyone I mean myself as well. I have just learned to look at life a little closer, be lucky enough to be debating right now on the computer. be able to go home to a family after school. snack on whatever I want before bed. ok I admit, I…

For

• The final round is for the final rebuttal and closing statements. I would also ask the judges to reject, at their discretion, any sources or evidence that CON presents in the final round. Most judges would consider introducing evidence or sources in the final round bad form if…
• Thanks for the round 2 arguments. I"ll provide my rebuttal below. OPENING STATEMENT My argument, outlined in ROUND 2, can be summed as the logical proof: Something that utilizes observation to prove cannot prove something that cannot be observed. This resolution is extremely…

For

• Lol, I'm glad there is another LD debater here =) I will attack/rebut my opponent's case then move on to crystallize and defend my own. Opponents case Value Structure: Value: Justice --> We both agree on Value Criterion: Kant's Categorical Imperative First off, my opponent says…
• Resolved: Consequentialism should trump deontology in the matter of US national security. Definitions: Consequentilism: an action should be determined by the consequences of an action rather then the immediate action itself. "Ends justify means." Trump: exceed, overcome, take…

For

• Thank you for addressing all of my points. I. Morality without god can be explained rather simply, actually. How we came into existence has very little impact on how we live today. Because we are social animals, we developed a social structure, which included morality. This…
• I agree with both the definitions and the rules. To answer your questions as briefly as possible: 1) I am agnostic so I make no claims as to whether or not there is a God, but I debate from the position that there is not, as I do not believe in any of the traditionally defined…

For

• Atheism is logical because it is illogical to believe in the fairy tale story I described before. Religion limits science and progression of knowledge. How can religion be logical if it limits the capabilities of human knowledge?
• Thank you for accepting my challenge, I look forward to a legendary battle of wits ;). The concept of Religion is this- lets worship this god that no one has ever seen, heard, or felt. Lets listen to these men who claim they have heard god. These men say we can only do certain…

For

• I don't particularily mind Con's extremely short responses, however, the effort each side puts into their posts will have a say when it comes down to it.To start, I will continue my deconstruction of the Negative case by further addressing Con's one and only argument. I might…
• Thank you to Con for making an effort to participate in this debate.Going straight to defending the argumetns, I would first like to note that Con gave 1 argument against ontological arguments and it didn't refute Godels proof. Before I address that, we must first see why Con's…

For

• (A.1)My opponent suggests that "everyone is born an theist". He needs to define atheism if he wishes to be clear on this statement, and show as to how this is so. However, my opponent has made no arguments or responses to my first affirmative. My argument still stands and I…
• (A) Understanding What I Mean by the Resolution While I am not concerned withdefinitionsfor atheism here (see 1.1), I think a passing comment on the clarity of my positionin regards to atheismbeing an"untenable position"are in order. By 'untenable', I merely mean to say that…

For

• The debate hinges on Con's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the original argument of fine-tuning. And he seems to be unwilling to accept that blatant error. As he assumes:When I say all/any, I mean everything that falls under a certain category. In this instance the…
• Since the debate has gone tiresome and repetitive, I will try to be as concise. By the way to clarify I didn't imply any ad hominem on Con, those words such as new-atheists and teenage are not meant to represent for him but as I mentioned I consider him to be mature and…

For

• Isn't posting my argument.
• Let me begin with addressing natural selection and then I will attempt to address the transitional forms you mentioned in this Round. Let's listen in on a hypothetical conversation between a biblical creationist (C) and an evolutionist (E) as they discuss some recent scientific…

For

• Thanks to my opponent for the challenge.Atheism has become fashionable lately in the u.s and british media with Richard Dawkins and comedians like Ricky Gervais and Bill Maher.Im all for free speech but some things bother me about these commentators,specifically... 1When these…

For

• Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited her round. You know who to vote for.
• >>>It is not a third way - it is congenial with atheism and theism. <<< I intend to argue against those who individualize themselves against atheism and theism. =====Counterarguments===== >>>Recognizing the absence of absolute knowledge is recognizing humanity's flaws and the…

For

• Agnosticism is neither a religion nor a race. Atheists simply put their trust in science? Here is an example: the downgrading of Pluto as a mere member of the Kuiper belt faced opposition and a new term dwarf planet was invented. Those who couldn't embrace a simple change of…
• You are kind of coming close to the core of the issue. In your own words: "Atheism is based on a common belief..." but Theism is also based on some kinds of "beliefs". Atheism is no more, but to criticize some "some beliefs" based on "some other beliefs". Taking stances is only…

For

• Structure: In the comments.RebuttalsScriptureThat something appears in writing is not a testament to its logical cohesiveness. What the Bible says is irrelevant.Self-RestrictionIn several of his points, Con raises an interesting question: Can an omnipotent being restrict…
• According to the structure laid out in R1, Con should have presented his opening arguments in R2. He has deviated from this structure, but, in this instance, I would ask voters to forgive him that oversight. I am willing to roll with it. Rebuttals 1. Omnipotence1a. Free WillBy…

For

• LAWRENCE KRAUSS, DIRECTOR OF THE ORIGINS PROJECT AT ASU IN ARIZONA In the first places, current physical theories suggest that our universe is probably not unique. Well beyond our ability to directly probe, there may be an infinity of universes, with differing laws of physics,…
• "The definitions of my words are seen in the words themselves. They are defined in action thru example :)" Round 1 Examples: I know of Santa. I know of many things from books. As a matter of fact, without books or any kind of writings, we would have no understanding of a god.…

For

• Extend my arguments.
• I appreciate his responses and rebuttals…"Agnostics to not have such a faith such willingness to answer in the affirmative or the negative they simply concede that their is no way of knowing whether a god exists. "The common misperception is that if one does not know, then…

For

• This is going to be short and sweet.A famous "proof" that 1 equals 2 This has nothing to do with the ontological argument, so my opponent wasted his time with this. Now..."According to that argument, god exists in all possible worlds. But "all possible worlds" includes many…
• Addressing My Opponent's Arguments "A maximally great being is a being with all of what we would call great making properties. That's completely arbitrary and undefined."Here is the definition of great:great/grāt/ Adjective: Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above…

For

• Someone wrote: "I agree with statement 1 trough 8 in the first proof" "I do not agree with statement 4 in the first proof" Your mere agreement or disagreement with any particular statement does not have any effect on the truth of that statement. "It should not really come as a…
• 1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the…

For

• Can God be Measured by Logic? It depends on how we define omnipotence. Since the stone paradox implied the use of maximal omnipotence, then it is therefore logical that we use maximal omnipotence when referring to the stone paradox. By definition of maximal omnipotence, God can…
• My opponent conceded and dropped a pretty large crux of my argument including my entire argument regarding common omnipotence, and chose to attack certain increments of my argument. Misunderstandings "God an do the illogical, but by doing so, has shown that he has limits.…

For

• Thank you. Now for the last round. My opponent continues to talk about the form of my argument. For example: "If you have an argument with propositions and a conclusion. Then if any one proposition is wrong then the whole argument is invalid. In fact as the following source…
• The process of this debate will not go very smoothly if Con and I are presumably arguing about the logic in the concept of "nothingness," if I understood my opponent's entire argument correctly. He says that I must provide my evidence that something can't come from nothing and…

For

• If God is all powerful, and all knowing then he can never be faced with a dilemma. With his foreknowledge he can never be faced with a surprise. Everything that happens could only happen with his approval. This implies that you could never do anything against God's will because…
• Present your antithesis

For

• I thank Con for the rational perspective presented in his rebuttal. However, his evidence does not stand up to scrutiny as I will explain on a case by case basis. Con: I will be defending the Christian religion... Con slickly avoids the ad populum fallacy by using the word…
• The burden of proof is on Con to show that God is likely to exist; I will refute his evidence and arguments once they are posted. The most prominent reason for my disbelief in a God is that there is no compelling evidence for one. The following arguments will elucidate why the…

For

• The Con says that belief in God is not out of desperation as people have many reasons for believing in god. This is not true, and the best way to demonstrate this is by showing how belief in god has changed as our knowledge has changed. So first we gave Gods names and…
• I'm glad that this debate has attracted interest. I wish to first state my basic argument, then address the flaws in my opposition's. Evil. There is no denying that it is in abundance. Thousands of innocent people being blown limb from limb in conflicts they didn't start;…

For

• Which has benefited mankind more? Religion or science? Many would agree that science has due to the fact that religion has spawned wars and disagreements across the globe when we can all agree on science because it is a common ground for curiosity among everyone. But...where…
• As you are already well aware, science is needed for progress. It is proven in economics as much as it is for anything else. Religion is like this in a way. Human progression is spurred by a purpose; a common purpose that people drive towards for the same reason. Sure science…

For

• I would like to point out that the contender, yet again, regards to definitions in the epistemic sense; and not the metaphysical sense. Regarding 2) In his reply, the contender claims that God is defined in the bible, and brings up a number of examples to back his claims.…
• Because his attempted refutation regards the steps one by one, I will present my counter-rebuttal in the same manner. Regarding 1) In his rebuttal, the contender mentions that the god of the bible must have to be more than just a notion, i. e. exists objectively; and because we…

For

• I believe that individual who subscribe themselves to the principles of Atheism are in actuality, Unwitting Agnostics. Everyone believes in a power greater than themselves, Even if it's not a deity or some anthropomorphic entity. I, Like many atheists, Enjoy the logical debates…
• Atheism: a disbelief in a god, Or entities that exhibit god-like qualities Agnosticism: view that the existence of a higher power is unknown/unknowable. Neither embracing or discounting this belief Stubborn: an individual who is determined not to change their position in spite…

For

• I will conclude this debate by thanking, The Russian, for his participation. I am not promoting God or asking anyone to agree with me. If I were to be truthful, I feel that The Russian's last submission was just 'more of the same. Let me show you why I say this.Free Will is for…
• The Russian states 'An atheist is one who claims that there is no God.''Hi The Russian and thanks again for your participation. Here is what Wik states'Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection…

For

• My opponent continues to stubbornly state the same thing over, like a boy with a toy hammer that thinks if he whacks something hard enough it'll eventually impale. Sadly for him that's not the way logic and critical evaluation work!My opponent: "Since these two propositions are…
• My opponent is frustrated and claims I'm being intellectually dishonest and unethical. However, I want to demonstrate that it is he who is being intellectually dishonest. He claims that I would be arguing the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) in this…

For

• No round as agreed.
• Apparenty my opponent could not refute my arguments and chose to ignore my case.However, I will say again that God's omnipotence allows his power to surpass human logic. Remember, I didn't define God as omnipotent, you did. Therefore, anything is possible with God, even making…

For

• "Pro is conceding that war erases personality," No, it does not erase personality. In fact, war is a chance for personality to shine. Only in war can the bravest show their bravery. Only in war can the greatest generals prove themselves and have their name written down in…
• "Well, if he read my point more carefully, he would have noticed that I spurned this sort of numbers evaluation from the outset." I read your point very carefully, but in this case, the "personality" of a person is irrelevant. In war, as cruel as it may sound, a person is a…

For

• Thank you for your arguments. In this round, I will rebut your case.=================================================================================A summary of my opponent's 1st argument here:I honestly did not get the point of my opponent's first argument. If I understand it…
• I'm glad to see that he is interested in this topic very much. I'm not sure if what my opponent presented in the first round was simply an analysis, or actual arguments. But as stated in my opening round, round 2 Is the round for arguments so I believe it is most likely just…

For

• big bang theory noun Astronomy. a theory that deduces a cataclysmic birth of the universe (big bang) from the observed expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, abundance of the elements, and the laws of physics. Also called big-bang model. Compare steady state…
• For a simple start, allow me to clear some massive misconceptions you have. First, you seem to think the Big Bang was the combustion of life in early-Earth conditions. No, this is not so. The Big Bang is the common name for the beginning of the known Universe, not life. Also,…

For

• The title of this argument isn't meant to be condescending, just to find the most rational starting point in a debate. If the debate is "is there a god" or "is god good for the world" if you are coming into the argument with a belief in a god then you are already biased. You…
• When approaching a religious debate, coming in at an atheistic viewpoint is more rational/logical then if you were coming into it a theist.

For

• god created the holy tree.. and the devil so everyone went to hell without choice before the bible was written? i dont see a god to love anywhere you can assume anything
• ye

For

• My opponent has the final word in this debate so I will prepare a hard blow to my opponent in my last round. Yes, It is still in debate today but I would argue that it is more probable than improbable that humans have souls. Fine I will assume that souls exist. All I will say…
• Sorry for the late response I went to bed. It is not a fact to you as you may not be familiar with the case for the soul so I will be willing to educate you. I did say that for the purposes of this debate we will assume that Humans have souls. I am making sure that the voters…

For

• I submitted my second round right before bed, and when I woke up this morning I got an email saying it's my turn to debate. TheSkeptic is either quite the night owl or quite the early bird. Either way, his quick reply is much appreciated. ==================== TAG - Existence of…
• Let me just say, TheSkeptic is a worthy opponent. Not only did he bring his "A" game, he clearly understands the nature of TAG, something many of my previous opponents have failed to grasp. This debate is certainly going to be engaging. I will defer to my opponent's structure…

For

• The universe is the mind of God.
• I respect my opponent's acknowledgment. I've invested a lot of time into my work. I also respect his precocious ability. The "evidence" is as follows. That which is immaterial is abstract, and abstraction is a mental process that "abstracts" or educes general relationships from…

For

• Cameron presented only the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, this greatly falls short. All the Kalam argument does is show that the universe has a cause. The universe having a cause is a far cry from showing that religion is logical, or should be accepted. My opponent then…
• Thank you for defining some words. I'll define some more. Justifiable - Able to be shown to be right. So for something to be logical, it must be "able to be shown to be right by reason." That means for any religion to be logical, the religion must be "able to be shown to be…

For

• Thanks Pro.PrefaceI hoped to keep this debate relatively quick and concise, thankfully Pro has obliged with his previous round. I request Pro make a full rebuttal next round, otherwise this debate can be reinstated. In any case thanks for the debate and best of luck in the…
• Thanks Con.I tried to keep it below 1,000 words, but failed… Voters - I beg of your forgivness.RebuttalsPremise 1No rebuttal is given for this premise. Note that the definition of God within this debate is not a "maximally great being", thus his arguments are so far red…