Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 17

For

• So populations of ignorant and emotional people prove that souls exists? -_- yea no.I see what your getting at with your emotional appeal with the whole mother thing, however what you are referring to is a loss of original consciousness, this is similar to how when you make a…
• If there is no evidence that something exists, then why should we care about it -_-All you have done is used emotional appeals in place of logic.

For

• In conclusion, since this is my last round, I see no reason to rebut the arguments of my opponent in the preceding round because most of the things he said there, has been rebutted in my previous argument. My opponent is only given reasons to love and is yet to prove that love…
• The problem with my opponent is this, he will say something and when it is been rebutted, he tries to use it as his own advantage. My opponent once said, ....and they lived happily ever after' now I rebutted this and he claims am changing the motion. It is my opponent who don't…

For

• Here we are, the final round of debating, and without a further ado; 1. Humans and emotion - Survival of the fittest doesn't fit with our world view today; we humans, right now, living on Earth, need to look out for ourselves, the environment, and countless other small things.…
• Humans and emotion - Except for moral choices. Humans need emotion sometimes to guide them, as individuals, through tough times in their lives. Just because they had to make a hard decision doesn't mean they aren't intelligent; all it means is that we are emotional creatures,…

For

• Thankyou Dan!Well, the reason why Naturalism assumes Supernaturalism so is self defeating is as follows:There is no other way to divide naturalism and supernaturalism than by the human ability to explain something. As soon as there is an explanation, the subject becomes…
• Fun quick debate:I will be arguing that Naturalism assumes that humans are supernatural and is therefore self defeating. "Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or…

For

• The following problems exists in this argument: 1. The argument assumes that God's existence is dependent on his actions which is false. God made everything, therefore everything is subject to his rules and order. Job knew God is just and wrestled with his character, but not…
• The problem of evil argument states that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at once and rests on the following: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is…

For

• ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can always be a retaliatory response. You claim that anger brings violence, yes maybe in the examples given within the stoic readings, but what is to look at are the other applications of anger. We can be angered at someone else's…
• ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can and will be a destructive force. As said by Aristotle himself, there are fine lines between being excessive and being deficient. Anger is a virtue in which every human is born with. But, by practicing the virtue of anger, one can…

For

• ,,This is a baseless assertion by my opponent and does not have any weightage. He doesnot show why and how it is a matter of choice he simply asserts so. I should like to inform the voters that this is actually contradictory to his case because he goes on to rest the case of…
• Note that in this debate, I am not defending the position of any of the holy books. Far from it, I am doing the exact opposite. My argument 'Evil' is not a matter of choice, whether you like it or not. Nobody simply 'chooses' to be evil. This brings me back to another debate on…

For

• possibilities are imaginary, not real can reality happen? is your neighbour home right now? so, stop eating real food........................................... and just imagine eating food for the next week, shouldnt be a problem there so if you imagine the lamp didnt break,…
• no thats the thing.. i can imagine whatever i want.. it isnt contingent upon memory or else i would no be able to lie lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one anything i imagine is false, you can imagine whatever you like, you can imagine opra is…

For

• The debate here is whether consciousness is to be believed as physical or non-physical. The argument assumes no science is required to prove it and that consciousness is real and has a non-physical "self" of it's own - it's an "a priori" argument. I want to win votes on my…
• A idea of an individual spirit either going to heaven or hell is in the arena of religion, and perhaps that idea is suited to that category, more so than the initial scientific approach taken; which regarded using an apparatus to observe and define the electrical firing of the…

For

• Thanks to RT for the challenge and for the kind words. May the odds be ever in your favour!If we define the universe as all matter, energy, space, and time, then whatever the cause of the universe is, it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.We all agree that abstract…
• [This space intentionally left blank.]

For

• The first premise can be summed as follows: If a person (x) does something at some time, she could have acted otherwise than she did. Premise one is disputed.. People can, indeed, act on impulse or plan and act. The former and the latter both result in actions, which is,…
• The burden of proof is hereby upon me to convince, via propelling arguments, a case supporting free will in light of the Free Will Problem(henceforth called the FWP). In the second round(proceeding), I will present my arguments and the opposing will present his against. A…

For

• Since my opponent failed to prove that the future does indeed exist and since no such evidence could be found from a reputable source, I hold to the statement that the future does not exist and can therefore not be changed. The future is an empty concept that can at most be…
• suite101. com. Unless she is the author of that article (Cyrus Dehkan) I fail to see how a fair and enjoyable debate can develop. My opponent's source made two points: 1. Time is relative, and time effect can be altered. 2. Scientists "feel" that it might be possible for an…

For

• <3 wooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• I would like to firstly destroy this diversive case being proposed in favour of greed,secondly I would like to address a semantic error that is becoming fairly consistent in my opponent's debate. then counter all rebuttals made to my points. Greed, as my opponent so kindly…

For

• Con continues to play semantics avoiding the issue of the resolution. Claim: The English languages uses phrases where a concept recognizes another concept. Warrant: "How does the law recognize and deal with medical errors?"[7]. Impact: This is a scholarly peer reviewed article.…
• Pro figured that there was a high probability Con would take this approach. Pro couldn't think of a better way to phrase the resolution. Here is a similar resolution. "Full Topic Justice requires the recognition of animal rights." [2]. The same argument Con makes could be made…

For

• The point of this resolution is to examine if the costs outweigh the benefits or not. My answer is simply yes, they do. All of my costs go uncontested... flow these through the round. My opponent has refused to give any benefits whatsoever, however, last round I offered one…
• My opponent offers an interesting opening argument, but it does not disprove the resolution. She opens with a statement that is true but is applied wrong. She says that all she has to prove is that there is no truth in the statement. BUT, in order to prove that there is no…

For

• Well, originally, I thought I had accepted this debate as Con, since I strictly hold nihilistic views and would never approve of the concept of utilitarianism. I'll debate this, nonetheless. Good luck, phantom!
• Sorry for my absence in the last round. Give the opponent conduct... But still judge everything else. How does this debate have seven Facebook likes?I posed counter-arguments in my refutations that not only counter my opponent's claims but also develop my own claims. These…

For

• And yet we do define animals based on biological traits. What if we classified living creatures by the colour of their hair? By the length of their intestines? By the shape of the beak? But we don't, we have the classification as it is and it's based on that that we might or…
• 1. I would like to point out the likely biased nature of such a webpage, which as you know, is written by humans and based off human findings (which proves our superior cognitive ability, that i do not contest), which are obviously biased by said human's education that shows…

For

• How sad. Please do not vote - I will see if this debate can be remade.
• On my "not having any arguments". This is far from the truth – I have shown that there is no way for one to refute (or even not accept) the LNC, as the very concept of doing so already assumes that the LNC is valid. If this debate were on the resolution "Language is real" and I…

For

• IN A DEBATE, BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON BOTH PRO AND CON. PRO must prove he is right. CON Must PROVE something else is right. Being Con in a debate means you must provide a contrary belief and defend it. Con does not just have the right to sit back and deny your evidence. He…
• Extend all my arguments: my opponent's account has either been deleted or removed, therefore they stand true in the round, as a result I win. I am a really inefficient space filler.

For

• Forfeiters oh forfeiters.
• I note that my opponent has forfeited his round. I hope he is ok.

For

• theories and facts, are of reality, they are not real fact=memory=truth=knowledge if gravity didnt exist out side of facts, facts about gravity could not exist. you are taking past and now as matter.. now is matter, past is not matter. observation is now and past observation is…
• i know gravity, i dont have to imagine it facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter

For

• Defense: rehashing of the defense of premise 2: let X be a world with categorical imperative C. let Y be a world with categorical imperative not-C. Let Z be a world without categorical imperatives. C states that one ought to do action 'a'. (C <=>0a) not-c states that one ought…
• it is a shame that my opponent forfeited the previous round. I hope he returns. as my previous argument was rather long winded, (I nearly hit the character limit) I will not provide any further arguments until my opponent returns.

For

• My opponent is confusing moral objectivism, the belief that moral truths actually exist, with Objectivism, the crackpot pseudo-philosophy of Russian-American author Alisa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand). His refutation of it is interesting but extremely off topic. God did not ask Abraham…
• My opponent has sort of gone off on an irrelevant tangent about Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism. I am going to stand by my arguments and press him on the Sacrifice of Isaac. I think we can all agree that commanding a man to kill his own son is immoral, no matter what the…

For

• You certainly seem to place the possibility of God at zero. And yes, all religions are the creation of men. But Christians believe that there is no single church that is above all the rest. We only believe in Christ our Savior. You really love that caps lock button, don't you?…
• I'd actually like to go THREE rounds with you. First, I don't remember anything in the terms about debating WHICH religion is real, I was just arguing that theism in general is perfectly rational. The subject of which religion, however, needs its own debate. What I'm going to…

For

• thanks for replying to my debate.... I did never mention that smoking is a right... But after all it is the person's life, they should be allowed to do what they please with their life. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... as in the link above you can see that The right to…
• I think that a person's right should be denied only if it infringes upon the rights of another and not when it causes harm to those who exercise the rights themselves.Like smoking should only be banned if it affects others(like passive smokers). But a person should be allowed…

For

• I too hope that it will be fun. It seems to me that a large part of this debate depends upon how 'person' is defined. I will make a rudimentary definition, though I wish it to be clear, I am not adverse to amendments upon definitions. Person: A biological (physical) entity,…
• I shall be arguing that with the passing of every second, every unit of time, even at every individual instant, one is a different person. To be fair, this shall act as a clarifying statement only, and the first round will be devoted only to acceptance, greetings, etc. Greetings!

For

• so animals cant be moral because they dont live in a society, tjeck, rules and boundries are needed or only immorality will exist tjeck apples was healthy to all civilizations before us like they are to us, they didnt turn poisonous, but one can believe apples are from the…
• morality=survival

For

• ==Definitions== --> She agrees with all the definitions provided except for "societal." She cuts out the part of government, however I believe governmental action and responsibility is a necessary extension of societal analysis. Governments in a pure nature should represent the…
• Resolved: Consequentialism is the most logical form of societal ethics ==Definitions== 1. Consequentialism: ethical theory which states that the most ethical action is the one which produces the best outcome 2. Logical: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and…

For

• I'm sorry my sons have been sick this past week. I would like to continue this debate but I don't know how to postpone it. So I guess I just forfeit. Good points all around. Your assumption that I would need to personally prove all obligatory actions to be insincere was off,…
• Whereas, to be obliged is to forgo the privilege of sincerity, and, Whereas, an obligatory action is one performed under the pretense of the obligation and, Whereas, sincerity is the freedom from all pretense and, Whereas, a sincere act must be a desired act regardless of the…

For

• My opponent forfeited the last round. All arguments extended..
• The question should pertain to a standard of knowledge. This could be either a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge ect...

For

• 2 forfeits - the winner is clear.
• Extend my arguments to this round.

For

• It is not often you find an argument that completely refutes what you have said. I think Con's initial response in this case has done exactly that. I thank Con for finding the spare time to participate in commiting himself to this debate. I also would like to apologise for not…
• In the past to this point in time in history a great number of questions have been asked and answered by philosophers and scientists. However ever great those questions have been, no other question is more relevantly practical than the question being asked in the field of…

For

• Introduction: I am sorry if I forgot to quote something – though I'm not sure what you are referring to. A lot of what was said was copy and pasted from one of my previous debates. 1. Probability of Life We can quibble about probability and the equations used – but in the final…
• Introduction: My opponent should take note of the things I DID NOT say. I did not posit a metaphysical universe, an omnipotent creator, or mystery (at least no more than alternative theories have areas of mystery). Intelligent Design merely says that observed complexity is best…

For

• To start off, I believe Utilitarianism is a better ethical theory primarily because unlike Kantian theory it doesn"t judge whether or not a decision/action is moral by societal or personal rules/guidelines. Therefore making it difficult for a society to decide which actions…
• In this debate I intend to discuss which ethical philosophy (Kantianism/Deontological Theory vs Utilitarianism) is better to live by. I would also like to "share the burden of truth". Therefore, my opponent will be arguing why "Kantianism is a better ethical theory than…

For

• Existence exists. But does it, really?Let us consider, firstly, the language-game problem. When we use the language 'existence', to what do we refer to? Something that has been described as "the most abstract notion that humans have" by medieval philosopher Duns Scotus. Our…
• My basic argument is that it is impossible to prove anything so as to attain complete and utter certainty. As in, "this thing is 100% fact". I contend that absolutely nothing falls under this description as truth is not objective, but subjective in nature, and therefore does…

For

• Pro does not agree that there is a reality that we see that does not ONLY exist in the mind. We do not see reality. We see an image created by our minds because of light which is reflected off objects and strikes our retina. Con is still under the impression that the image we…
• There is one major flaw with Con's logic. Human minds may not be necessary for reality to exist, but without human minds we have no way of knowing anything actually exists at all. Everything we see, hear, touch, taste and smell is just electrical impulses interpreted by our…

For

• Free Will Is Incompatible With Psychology "We have the ability to choose what the reasons for our action will be." That is false. We cannot control what reasons ultimately affect our decision. My opponent presents: "For example, a person who is running and trying to decide…
• Thanks, Ockham. Let's begin. Our brain tells us what to do, how to feel, what to think, etc. Indeed the only reason I can even type this argument is because my brain is communicating with the rest of the muscles in my body via the nervous system, allowing my body to follow its…

For

• Thanks for accepting my challenge. Just want to point out before I give my argument that you have to prove that at least one thing matters as well as pleasure and pain. But it has to matter intrinsically (in itself) to wellbeing rather than instrumentally (like how money is…
• My opponent will argue that things other than pleasure and pain are important IN THEMSELVES to wellbeing. Pleasure and pain will be defined as positive and negative sensations occurring physically in the brain. I look forward to a thought provoking debate.

For

• I've always wondered why there isn't any debates on the merit of Objectivism when we have several prominent members in support of it - hopefully this debate can peak the interests of some who are willing to do the same. ==================== Auxiliary Issues ====================…
• However, in her speed it seems she has misunderstood much of my arguments, so I will do good to clarify and elaborate in this round to demonstrate why the criticisms are currently insurmountable. ==================== Touching upon auxiliary issues ====================…

For

• Friends, Families, Stalkers and Douche bags, here we witness. .. the redneck. He is blind, ignorant, and is just plain stupid on almost all issues. 1. I would like some proof that these 'Religious Texts" are real. 2. Also, why the so called "Lord" who makes us waste 4 hours…
• Con May go first!

For

• My opponent has forfeited. All my arguments still stand.
• Con Argument 3: A. He says I failed as a con to refute any arguments, but all my arguments are in some how wrapped around the debates topic. B. I agree that we are not arguing over whether or not there is an after life, but it seems to me like our reasoning for life is well…

For

• "If the "an eye for an eye" system continues, then people will not take an eye in the first place....." The statement implies that the whole world will go blind if people continue the "tit for tat" system. "Even if they do, I don't think this statement is meant to be used in…
• "You do not have to take two eyes at a time from the aardvark." When I said "two eyes at a time", I meant one from two different aardvarks each. Eventually, every aardvark would go blind. The statement that is the resolution implies that "If the 'eye-for-an-eye' system…

For

• i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it belief=be lie, as i dont know is true i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine it kNow=physical experience(now) math itself is not true in that it is numbers, imaginary, imaginaiton is not true, so…
• 2+2=4(know)=true=reality 2+2=5(belief)=false=imagination any false answer is imaginary, and any belief is imaginary believing that reality is true is doubting reality is true, Thus i must believe reality is false 0=nothing=information=false and truth 1=something=matter=true…

For

• Note to all: While it is true that I label myself as a solipsist, that is not the true definition of what I believe. I agree with solipsism that the self is the only thing you can know for sure is real, but I do not agree that the self is the ONLY thing that exists in the…
• I will start. There is no objective reality. There is no WAY of proving there is an objective reality. Con will provide arguements to say that there is an objective reality. Burden of proof is on me to show that the arguements don't hold and don't prove anything.Resoltuion:…

For

• Thank you for responding, let us get straight to the rebuttals 1. "pros main argument is this: People cannot be equal because they will always seek to make something elite. PRO cites that all previous instances to achieve equality have failed, but limits the scope of "previous…
• Let us begin, but before that I need to clarify something. "If CON can illustrate even one way that equality, as PRO defined it, to be realized -however outlandish, bold or irrational- then PRO necessarily looses this debate." This is true. However, I still possess the ability…

For

• I believe that love and hate are opposites of one another and they cannot exist without one another. Con has said that love and hate are not opposites, but I believe they are.The world is full of opposites, and so are you. You must bring it all into balance in this world.…
• I believe that if there is no hate, there'll be no love, and if there is no love, there'll be no hate. If you go against that, I'll be happy to challenge you, if you're the first to accept my challenge.

For

• when you are asked the question, what is the meaning of life, are you thinking about what brings meaning to your life, or as a general what the true meaning could be? belief is be lie, belief is imagination because you cant believe anything without your imagination, I cant…
• life is true, so the true meaning of life can never be mental, as matter is true, and my physical body is matter, therefore only 1 emotion is the true positive meaning of life life is sensory experience as I am dead without my senses. there is no life in my imagination,…

For

• Awkward as this may be, it is at this point necessary to highlight the basic errors Stephen's refutation of my previous round. I did not say that political theory "cannot" rest on empirical facts, for indeed it can. Rather, I distinguished normative theory from empirical…
• Thanks to CON for this. It should be interesting as always... There are three basic problems with CON's argument. The first is that he's under the impression that political theory could be accurate or inaccurate -it can't, because social contract theory (hence forward referred…

For

• I think morality is not relative. Before I state my reasons I must make clear what morality exactly is and what it means when one considers morality is not relative. Based on my knowledge morality is set of rules that are or are not permissible in terms of harm. The reasons I…
• I am not discussing the age of the person who is drinking but the fact that their values and beliefs are totally different one another. And it doesn't necessarily means that the person who is drinking lives in a family or society where they do not know the system or rules of…

For

• Thank you to Ajab for challenging me to this debate, and as requested, I will begin here. I'd actually spent quite a bit of time looking into the philosophy behind this before coming up with this post. But as you'll notice, I'm not going to be spending much time addressing the…
• As agreed, I will pass this round. Thanks Ajab, and onto the voters!