Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 16

For

• One cannot be the author of their own conscious desires or thoughts. One cannot have control over their wants and needs and impulses. Any decision you try to trace back can only be traced back to some unconscious process over which you had no control. "How can we be "free" as…
• That makes very little sense. It should be patently obvious that you can"t trigger anything outside of your own conscious. Yes you can throw a rock but only because the desire to do so arose in your mind. "Outside" could include everything rooted in nature/nurture which are…

For

• As for the 1st point, I suppose i have to agree to some extent. If the humans always made perfect deductions, and in turn, perfect conclusions, there would be no need for debates, since no correction would be needed. However, we live in a world where humans make mistakes, and…
• Illustration: If you wanted to know if a dollar bill was counterfeit, you have 2 basic options: 1- Learn many of the forms of counterfeit bills out there. This would mean you would have to learn many types of counterfeit, perhaps all of them to be conclude with certainty…

For

• Ok, maybe you are right in some case. but how you can explain the reasons of divorces? You believe for true love, but why usually male cheating their wife even if he truly love his wife? Is it justly to love this men???? Is it True Love from your opinion. If we combine all male…
• How you will be with the person that you really love, without monney. how you can buy to her present without moey. As I understood you against Money, but don't you think that people are lose their feelings, passion because of money. The feelings of love is a temporary emotion.…

For

• . http://www.youtube.com...

For

• First, we obviously don't have the technology to express everything mathematically (yet!), hence the use of the phrase "Imagine a world..." (where a world could mean a future state of humanity [ex. humans in the year 2845], or a utopia). I was also careful enough to use the…
• Imagine a world where people could express themselves solely using Mathematics; from dance, movement, ideas, thought processes, all the way to calligraphy. I think (in due time) everything could be expressed using a mathematical formula or a mere number... everything.

For

• Unfortunately, my opponent has not accepted my original definition, nor my second option for change. I will be forced to unapprove of his change of my original definition given in round 1. That being said, I will now show my arguments. I point to . http://www.near-death.com...…
• I appreciate my opponent taking the time to have this debate, And I also found our screen names humorous. I was also in the JROTC in my High School days, good times. I realized while creating this debate, that the strongest argument against my proposition would be that of…

For

• I. ExtensionMy opponent is not attempting to falsify my argument at this point. If he choses do so, then so be it. He says he is having trouble trying to prove this wrong, which makes sense considering the theory was built around the idea of doubt, not falsification.He did…
• I. RebuttalMy opponent posed a question last round, as to whether or not I can prove my theory. But before I get into that I want to fix some misconceptions Con had with my argument. I'm not saying that since things that can fly have atoms and so do pigs therefore pigs can fly.…

For

• Prejudice- : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logicalNB - I am not entirely comfortable with this definition - in fact I think…
• Oh all right, thanks. Thats okay.Well perhaps I'll just debate this another time then. We only have one round left so there wont be much we'll be able to get through anyway. If you agree with me though, there won't be much debating going on :PI suppose then, if anyone else…

For

• I did not define person, but since I am speaking of Human Beings, not person (person is an under-developed definition of Human Being) I will open the definition up to what I speak of. A Human Being IS a person, but a complicated person. A Human Being is an individual self, even…
• A lone person communicates to themselves. The two people involved would be sending forth and receiving the information. You would most likely point out that there aren't two people, but the two people would be one in the same, and as explained they are two people because one…

For

• I understood the general idea of what you were trying to get across, but there were at least three or four topics being discussed as one. I wanted to get a common understanding of terminology out of the way, which in itself took care of the alleged link between Darwinian…
• 1)Fair enough. 2)It might not matter greatly, but it does matter. Geocentrism was an unfalsifiable hypothesis; the descent of beings from a common ancestor is a scientific fact. 3)Agreed. 4)What terms did I redefine? You gave no definitions at all. The question of abiogenesis…

For

• At the very least I have no defene to counter here. On a side note Con, if you're looking to lean, a dialectical method is pretty much assumed in this format. Posting reactions, counters, problems, etc. along with a defense of what you take to be the right position would better…
• I accept. Due to Con's lack of definitions provided in R1 I'll elect to do so here.===Definitions===Difference Principle. "The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society."[1]Con…

For

• There is absolute truth. Not everything is a matter of perspective. In order for you to say or be anything, even to criticise you must exist. If you don't exist, you cant do any of these things. Therefore existence is a fundamental truth. With that fundamental truth comes the…
• The Fool: For the absolute sceptic is often called the global sceptic, this is a position a philosopher makes up as a rival for whom he must test his claims against to see if they pass. But one thing I should make clear is to mention that not all philosophers are philosophers.…

For

• Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Ignorance can be tied to apathy and…
• Take a real life case. In the mountains in Idaho in 1992 there lived a family who was paranoid and thought the government was after them. It turns out they were right. The case is called the Ruby Ridge incident. The FBI trespassed on their property withoutproper warrant and…

For

• Premise 1 - Refutation The KCA is a deductive argument which imports inductive reasoning. The conclusion follows that God exists, not that God probably exists. This debate is about soundness. [1] Inductive arguments are arguments which do not attempt to establish a thesis…
• Thanks Philocat! I look forward to a riveting exchange of views. Due to character constraints, I could not defend everything in round 2. Please note, I use the phrase "comes into being ex nihilo" and "begins to exist" interchangeably. The first premise was reformulated to…

For

• Thanks for accepting SillyDebater, I think you got us off on a path where we might find truth after this is all said and done. I think you have done a great job in framing your comments and staying on point, but I ask you to think critically about where I find the holes in your…
• Christianity's biggest weak point for me lays in the fact that it assumes we can make a choice to believe in and have faith in God. But I contend that belief is not a choice: it is a result. We can only take action to reach such a result, but that result is not guaranteed.…

For

• Is God more complex than the universe or the human He is supposed to have created? It might seem not, because God represents what seems to be a simple concept: omnipotent, omniscient, and good\. By contrast, the universe seems to be a vast maize of galaxies and forces. I…
• 1. Con offers three alternative definitions of AD, all three of which clearly contain the same two inherent contradictions as the more-encompassing definition that I offered. Con offered no argument as to why the two fallacies would not apply to his versions of AD, therefore…

For

• You have already failed to follow God's commandments. The point of this debate is not trying to keep God's law to stay on the safe side just in case God cares. The point is, death is all you can be sure of if you play Pascal's Wager. Death is an end or interruption of life,…
• Pascal's Wager cannot be won. God is not allowing bets to be placed in order to win a place ih heaven or eternal life. You have fallen from eternal life because you already failed to do good enough to gain eternal life. You can't win by playing Pascal's Wager. The only thing…

For

• As I stated before:I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON proffers in this debate. This is because, as stated in round #1, CON is a liar, and so the truth value of any statement CON makes cannot be determined. There is no one…
• lol, I thank CON for playing along, and I do hope this proves to be constructive. Before I begin, because of the rules stated in round #1, I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON will proffer in this debate. This is because, as…

For

• Your definition of free will appears to be a decision that occurs completely out of the blue..... Which of course is non-sense. The reasoning and emotion that influences a persons will is not an external force it's an internal, part and parcel, make-up of a persons…
• I don't see the psychological or physical arguments as constraints they are what define our decision making process. If they are a constraint, what are they constraining? A decision making process? What is an unrestrained will? It's.... ....nothing. Not the same as a free will.…

For

• So why is being immortal great? The way I see it there are two points of view for this argument. 1: being a slightly selfish but still reasonable view, that you will be unhappy. See the main issue people have with this is that your loved ones will die. True this would be sad,…

For

• It's always appropriate to question responsiveness. Readers will decide if Con has addressed the whole chain of logic needed to get from the KCA to issues of importance. Morality is important; the God question alone is not I derived step-by-step that God is only important to…
• Virtually all of my opponents claims were addressed in my opening arguments, to which he did not respond. Con says, "It is possible to determine several characteristics of the first cause through transcendental necessity ..." What does transcendental necessity mean? It seems to…

For

• This leaves me in the awkward situation of having to ask that you refrain from posting any rebuttals or arguments in the 2nd round, since that would be unfair to me. Although interesting, I will have to point out that all your arguments are irrelevant and hardly attack my…
• The Paradox of the Stone poses the following question:"Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it?

For

• I'd again like to point ur attention to the 2 important words.. wealth and happiness.. wealth I have described in my previous post.. for happiness, I'd say that its different.. far different from joy which is temporary.. Far different from an isolated incident of joy obtained…
• Well I think u did not read the topic carefully.. Its wealth and not just money.. Wealth is a broader term that includes not just money and material aspects but everything spiritual as well, what I call spiritual wealth or wealth of character.. If u check up even the oldest of…

For

• Framework 1) The shared burden means each side must show their position to be more likely than their opponent's. In this round this means I must show that sentience is more likely to be of ethical relevance than not, while Con must do the converse. It then follows that it is…
• An initial thanks is in order first to royalpaladin for engaging me in this debate and second to those of you willing to commit your time and attention to judge this debate.Theoretical Framework: 1) Shared Burden of Proof was agreed to in R1. To win this debate Pro need not…

For

• zzzz
• without time experience cant exist, so experience is time I am me=space time being I am an all knowing creator, the only one that has ever been worshipped time is matter, as matter is space and space is time, like the invisible thing I breathe there is no time in the future and…

For

• I shall define 'to do nothing' in a formal manner for sake of no ambiguity.To do nothing is to carry out no physical action for at least an instantaneous moment of time.Despite being mentally impossible to do nothing since the mind is in itself doing something by existing it is…
• I destroyed your entire argument and you had no reply. You forfeited round 2 thus you forfeited all 7 points first.

For

• Let me quote from the given explanation of the Problem of Induction from Round One: "This is because for any cause, multiple effects are conceivable[.]" "In general, it is not necessary that causal relation in the future resemble causal relations in the past, as it is always…
• On "Point 1": If that which does not exist cannot have influence on that which does, and if the only things which exist are existents (to say otherwise would be absurd, given the definition of "existent"), then any of the laws my opponent describes can only come about because…

For

• Introduction & PremisesI as Pro will be arguing in favor of the resolution. I will have the burden of proof. I will be arguing perfection should be considered undesirable. Perfection:"The action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as…
• My opponent ignored my important point. "Perfection is relative to the eye's of the beholder. Perfection in itself suggests something is "faultless. " If one sees something has no faults then there is no need to improve"My opponent can not define perfection. Nor can my opponent…

For

• It is impossible to argue the claim that logic is not a viable method for discerning truth because any action or lack there of that is taken after such a claim would be logical. Thus negating the initial claim itself. However, negating the initial claim would be illogical and…
• First off. Your definition of logic as "explaining an event based on knowledge that you already have" is dead wrong Logic is a way of organizing premises to form a conclusion. Any and every argument at least attempts to use logic correctly. Every argument is comprised of three…

For

• Round One is for acceptance only. Pro/For: Math is discovered. Con/Against: Math is invented. *I accept Ad Hominem attacks.
• I am supporting Plato's metaphysical view that mathematics is discovered. I am asserting that abstract mathematical objects exist independent of us.1. Axioms are discovered. An axiom is a statement that is unprovable yet assumed to be true because it is self-evident. An example…

For

• I believe every action does have a moral consequence. Everything we do has an effect, right? So there must be a consequence following every action we do. This must be the case because of the fact of cause and effect, and nature as well. We do not control nature, it just happens…
• NAture can not make us believe anything, due to the fact that nature is pure science. Nature cannot be judged by believing in things like miracles. Science must be done in order to know the real cause and effects of why things happened. I understand that if someone believe that…

For

• Thanks, Lupricona, for the debate, and to the readers and voters!I. DropsIn order to avoid making new arguments, Lupricona may not talk about any points he dropped or make arguments he never previously made. A dropped point is one he failed to respond to when he had the chance…
• Thanks, Con. I will now respond to Con's R3. I. FrameworkAll of Con's points have become immaterial, insofar as we both agree than promoting human flourishing can be used as a means of weighing the arguments in this round. I noted that we could use human flourishing as a prism…

For

• 1. The fact that right and wrong are subjective negates my opponents resolution. This argument is not new and I made it in R2. This is a direct quotation of what I wrote: "This negates your entire argument because then from our perspective being forced to do the "right" thing…
• Extend all arguments. No point has been refuted, most of what my opponent has said is ad hominems and garbled nonsense. He hasn't refuted my main point nor made any coherent points.

For

• That brings me to this debate: http://www.debate.org... And so if you win that one, I would become a Christian, since we're at a stalemate here it seems.
• I don't see how that answers my argument, It would still be the case that God's nature just happens to be the way it is, couldn't it have been another way? Say if humans never evolved, would Christ still die on the cross? Obviously not, therefore, God's nature is "accidental."

For

• life is life absolutes=existence=1=stone=human=fish=bush=not machine
• past exist me to remember it sure.. but thats not the first thing you think about when you think about superman.. like you dont go to invisibility so existence is not absolute?

For

• Thanks, Con. Compatibilists accept the following argument for Determinism: 1. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the past, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature.2. If A causes B, we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have…
• Many thanks in advance to whomever accepts this debate.I originally sent this challenge to Reasoning; however, like most people on this site, he declined my direct challenge. I don't see why considering not only is he a vehement Compatibilist, but so are some of the most…

For

• Why Determinism is Wrong My opponent gives two definitions, one for determinism and the other for indeterminism. He states that determinism is "the idea that all reactions are caused by previous reactions." I would like to expand on this a little before I explain the…
• Why Determinism is Wrong I do believe my opponent misinterpreted my argument. He states I am "saying that because the effect of a quantum particle cannot be calculated, this quantum particle cannot affect something." That is not what I am saying. I was responding to your…

For

• I affirm that the resolution, Resolved: The Social Contract Theory ought to be valued over Justice. To do this I would like to offer these Definitions Social Contract Theory-A theory that states giving up rights is needed in order to have rights and maintain order Justice-The…

For

• The topic of this debate is that there is no evidence for free will, only evidence for it's absence. You took the "Con"position, meaning your argument is oppostite, opposed to, the debate topic. My postion is pro and I am supposed to be arguing in support of the debate topic.…
• Are you kidding me? You are actually arguing that we do have free will? The goofy things you said were actually arguments in support of the fact that we are responsible for our choices and actions because we willingly choose by exercising our free will? What side are you on.…

For

• Pragmatism is as pragmatism does. Overbearing intellect is oppressive. Truth is and reality is truth. Reality is reality and can not be altered. The spoken word is representative sound and the written word is representative symbolism. If truth is not truth and reality is not…
• I accept. Simply for the compositional challenge. This will be hard to debate. it will depend on how we choose to define "Fundamental". If we take fundamental to its' ultimate nadir. Then I fear all hope is lost. So will you graciously set out your vision of fundamentality.…

For

• Well, it seems as if my opponent forfeited. Anyway, We have good reasons to believe that integrated information complex is consciousness[http://www.biolbull.org...], and at the very least a complex integrated information system at a maxima is an identifier of it. How does this…
• My opponent forfeited.

For

• Well, this is the final round. I should pretty much win by default, which is too bad, but I'll put forth my idea of first-act altruism. In the example of an atheist anonymously donating money to charity, the only selfish motivation anti-altruists can find is the "good feeling"…
• Well, my opponent has forfeited this round, sadly. My arguments are not fleshed out in their full capacity, as my opponent has yet to respond. I will give him another round to try to respond and if he does not, I will fill in some holes in the final round to cement my point.

For

• In any of the cases above, whether or not the affliction could be "cured" was indeterminate. The original argument was not "I believe that anything can be overcome with human ingenuity, and thus nothing cannot be cured, making the aphorism functionally irrelevant", it was "I do…
• I disagree with your statement of the basis that implies that the fight should be continued for wholly performative means, i.e. so that others won't look down on you, which, quite frankly, asserts that the person in the position has already conceded that what was unable to be…

For

• A. I admit that using a ruler or other measuring device of that sort would cause changes in the human perception of the true amount. However, by using a precision scale, we can calculate the weight of the water. Place a cup of glass (X) exactly like the former, and write down…
• This is my first debate here actually, so I picked a simpler topic to start off with. Theoretically speaking, this is the glass of water in question. Suppose it is exactly at the 50% mark, with only air and water in the area it can be filled. http://mauifeed.com... Argument 1-…

For

• Thank you Dear Opponent for proposing this lively debate. Just to make sure our base of understanding is solid and consistent, a couple things I want to clear up: A more complete list of the arts: painting, music, theater, movies, sculpture, modern art, TV, fashion *as well as*…
• I am kind of confused as to whether I am supposed to proceed or not.. It sounds like you're done with this, yet you presented a series of arguments before forfeiting. Anyways, I was never trying to upset you, but it seems I did regardless. Given your forfeit, rather than use…

For

• Here goes: Simply put, the position of Rezzealaux states that there is no universal truth. However, considering the fact that universal truths can be either true or false, Rezzealaux's own claim is a universal truth (as his claim is false). If his claim were true, it would only…
• To answer your questions: "Your definition says "a statement", implying one. I would like to know the statement that you plan on asserting. " I am not necessarily planning on ascertaining any particular statement, but instead, my objective is to prove that a universal truth…

For

• Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.
• Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.

For

• Thank you for responding, ToastOfDestiny. All right, the main argument that I have to put forth here is, just because we think that a statement is a law of mathematics, doesn't mean that it actually is. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Click on abstraction (mathematics), pages with…
• I'll start with a definition: Mathematics: the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations…

For

• The Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that exists must have a cause. 2. The universe must have a cause (from 1). 3. Nothing can be the cause of itself. 4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3). 5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe…
• There is an unequal amount of positive and negative energy.

For

• if i ask you how are you going to say you already won the debate?
• you have proved you believe you have proved something