Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 2

1,989 debate topics, students. Debatable motions with arguments for and against. Open the arguments below, pick one at random, or present them full-screen.

StudentsDebatePage 2 of 40

51.
Rulers should govern through fear rather than love
For
Ruling Through Fear ExclusivelyWhen one rules through fear, and when one makes his subjects fearful of him, he is in greater control than he could be with love. When a leader establishes rules, and follows through with them without exception, he will become feared. If people…
I will be arguing that it is better to rule through fear exclusively than it is to rule through love exclusively. My opponent should do the opposite. Please note that neither form is perfect, what we are trying to show is which of the two is nearer to perfect. Note that we're…
Against
My opponent is really confused on this motion....but anyhow, I will present my argument in this round. Then in subsequent rounds, I will rebutt. DEFINITIONS rule - /ro"0"0ol/ noun 1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a…
I accept.
52.
The Kalam cosmological argument fails
For
Ave. I'm going to give a general summary of the debate to show that a Pro vote is justified. I will respond to new arguments brought up by Con as well. The first argument I gave against the KCA was from the theory of relativity. The KCA assumes that the theory of relativity is…
Ave.I have two contentions in regards to a personal cause of the universe. 1) The KCA demonstrates that there is no need for a personal cause of matter. 2) A personal cause of the universe is unnecessary given the evidence from physics.1: The KCA depends on the idea of…
Against
IntroductionIt seems as if this is going to be short and sweet, as Pro did not give me much valuable content to work with in the last round. Why The Cause Must Be PersonalIn order for there to be no need for a personal cause, my opponent has to refute my argument that a…
In this debate, I am going to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument establishes the existence of God, and why my opponent's argument fails. Rebutting My Opponent Pro only makes a few relevant statements here in his opening argument:(i) "If the theory of relativity is true,…
53.
People do not fundamentally change
For
People are all talk, they all say they will change but they don't. Everyone wants to think optimistically but in the end they settle into their comfort zone which is always the same, you can argue for Tony Robbins or a few celebrities who turned their lives around but for most…
Everyone born is different in some ways, some people while they are kids are very shy, some love the attention or are great at guest speaking and eventually become motivational speakers. Parenting is also a huge factor in child development. People from broken or dysfunctional…
Against
Your argument, again, is invalid, as everyone can change. People aren't 'born' in certain ways. When you were a baby boy, you didn't know crap about the outside world and how to react to it. Once you got older, you molded yourself into your own person. That's change. 'People…
People do change over time. What you are doing are making generalizations against humanity. People do and can change. Just because people don't change doesn't mean everybody doesn't change. Everyone with free will has the right to change. You and me, we have minds. We can…
54.
Moral right and wrong are absolute
For
orange colour is atleast 1, like a drop of water is atleast 1, or the sea is atleast 1 reality is objective.. everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist i am one is true reality is logic, logic is not subjective in the way you think. there is no logic in fantasy, i…
1=1, never 0, and never 2 if reality is a perception, how come i can change my perception, but i cant change reality? right and wrong are subjective, guided by object. it is completly irrelveant that it is subjective as long as its determined by reality like, if you eat a…
Against
Orange behind mirror = 0. Orange in front of mirror =2 (perseption subjective) Orange skin absorbs all colours except reflects orange. Perception orange/ reality not. Everything faulty perception. Reality faulty perception. Logic based on faulty subjective reality. Child runs…
Perception determines reality. Perception is flawed. Logic is faulty. Right and wrong are subjective.
55.
Existence precedes essence for human beings
For
Our essence is what we define ourselves as being. We cannot define ourselves as a volitional species--it is our nature. Much like we cannot deny that humans (typically) have two legs and two arms, we cannot say that we are not free to choose. Our faculty of volition is a…
My opponent throws the word 'value' around as if it itself had none. He believes that value on has merit if it assigned by an external source, otherwise he would be okay with the idea that it is ourselves that assign value. He is uncomfortable with the idea that our fates rest…
Against
My opponent mistakenly puts that free will can not be an essence and gives no reasoning behind it. He waves it aside and dismisses it as if it were a pesky fly. Unfortunately for him, his argument rests upon the very foundation that free will is in our nature and thus part of…
My opponent seems to have forgotten one simple fact, a glaring weakness in not only his but every existentialist system out there. The claim that we have no essence and therefore can decide for ourselves what to believe, that our "fate rests in our hands" is contradictory in…
56.
The fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional designer of the cosmos
For
I wasn't planning on making this a debate about my "intellectual standard", this is just a debate regarding whether the fine-tuning argument demonstrates an intentional agent/ intelligent designer or not (I apologise for the typo, and for any confusion). Either way, I will…
I will arguing that the fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos and life itself (the argument also plants the seeds of it's own refutation). First, I will review each premise to see if they can really add up to a solid…
Against
Sorry about my putrid forfeit"P1: This particular combination of physical constants within the universe which are capable of sustaining life are necessary or have a necessary part (the physical necessity of being capable of sustaining life over other conceivable…
OH MY GOD, You destroyed my argument.Meaning it succeeds on your levels atleast to the degree to compell you to totally debunk it.P1) "Lets say I was to accept this as fact[...]" - said by Awesome PersonSeems like an innocent hypothetical question, yes?I beg a differ.This kind…
57.
The problem of evil is a successful argument against the existence of God
For
IntroductionI must confess that I feel puzzled by Con's last response. Not only did he change a number of positions he holds yet again, but he presents his arguments completely clean of the criticisms I gave in the previous round. In my last round therefore, I will seek to show…
IntroductionThe first thing I feel I should point out is that the counters I have given to Con's objections to the PoE have been largely accepted. It is now the case that the objections that Con holds to the PoE is no longer the Is-Ought problem, and he has changed his second…
Against
Seeing its the last round I shall not be providing any new material, and will only be going over some previous points. You need good to have evilPro says. .. "While this only deals with a tiny part of my overall point, even then it butchers it. I am not saying that good and…
Burden of ProofMaybe its a mis-read on my part but its possible that Pro is implying that I am some how shifting the burden ? In the last round I made the point that I am not required to prove that God exists but rather trying to refute Pros argument, as Pro said at the start.…
58.
Anarchy is the only path to true freedom
For
I will ask the audience to keep it a tie since we both have conceded.
Alright. I will be sure to when I have more time. But umm.. summary of my argument? I dont think I should considering I conceded. I did enjoy debating you. see you later
Against
Ok bro. We can do it next time. Lo, I suggest, you put your summary and I will put mine. :) Just call me if you are ready, we can start over. God bless.
True Freedom does not mean "you can do anything you want in favor of your will". You have to choose which side would you want, either side A or side B. A>B or A Limitations on the other hand does not suppress us from Freedom. To give a clear example, I will tour you in my…
59.
Morality is right action performed with good intent
For
morality=not doing the wrong thing, so doing the right thing, to contrast with there being a wrong thing to do in order for me to do the right thinghow could i do the right thing if there is no wrong thing for me to do?morality is like math, guided by objective so absolute even…
so morality is wrong?religion is a false choice.. and agnostic has nothing to do with belief.. a predetermined choice is not a choice..
Against
Morality is neither right nor wrong. We have no choice. We can only choose how ethical we will be. Agnosticism does not involve belief, only facts. Religion and atheism are both beliefs and therefore illogical. And yes. Choice is a virtual construct of the mind and does not…
Exactly. Morality is our subjective view of right and wrong. But actions are judged by societal values. Ie ethics. We only know our own intentions therefore can judge only our own actions. Human action is motivated by pleasure. Not by morality. And yes. Atheism and theism are…
60.
Presuppositional Christians cannot rationally distinguish truth from fiction
For
Firstly I feel as though I owe Con an apology. This contention was aimed at being a parody of the recurring "How does an atheist rationally know truth from fiction" series, as opposed to an argument I would construct from scratch. Con has therefore responded to my cartooning of…
Presuppositionalist xtians live under the delusion that their arguments are the only ones that can ground reason, one of the elements they collectively lump into something they call the 'pre-conditions of intelligibility". But can they really claim this, when they cannot…
Against
I believe Pro confuses the idea of presuppositional apologetics when it is deeming "revelation" is necessary for rationality. The Clarkian school of thought is that rationaility itself is endowed by God (ie. The ability to REASON is the "revelation" that God permits and an…
But must say ,i am a bit disappointed because i had sincerely hoped for a good response or in the least an honest one. I did not hope to use my closing statements to point out straw men while disparaging my opponent. However, i guess this how debates go, though ,,I can honestly…
61.
Beauty can be fully defined through language
For
I have read your argument. Here is what I can conclude: "Beauty cannot be described by language because not everyone will always agree upon whether or not something is beautiful." You have just contradicted yourself. Beauty is a descriptive word, meaning it is an adjective.…
I have accepted the debate. I will be arguing that Beauty, in fact, can be described within the limits of language. I will be using definitions from www.Dictionary.com and www.Thesaurus.com. I await your opening argument.
Against
Let me clarify my argument. Beauty has definitions and classifications (such as an adjective) within language. It is my position that these descriptions do not fully describe the word, and do not fully cover everything that it can mean. My opponent said "I am more than sure…
Before we begin, I would like to clarify the topic. While there are definitions available of the word beauty, it is my personal opinion that most of them are incorrect, or do not cover the entire scope and all the details of the term beauty. With that said, it's perfectly fine…
62.
Absolute nothingness is impossible
For
I have grown pretty used to others simply accepting the points that i make so you arguing against me is positivley thrilling. I am truly enjoying having a intelegent discussion for once. While you make a excellent point in defense of nothing as the absence of a form of…
As i have stated Nothing can be defined as a absence of all matter but there is always some form of matter. even a vacuum which i known as an are with no matter within it is in reality a area with extremely small amounts of matter. Even the space in between the components of an…
Against
You have simultaneously asserted that my points are correct, and the rest of your argument falls under the fallacy of moving the goal posts. http://en.wikipedia.org...
While it has been shown that the atom, which was considered the fundamental unit of matter is now just the fundamental unit of an element, and that those sub-atomic particles do break down into even smaller particles known as quarks, what can be asserted, is that there can be…
63.
Complete equality among all people is impossible
For
My opponent will be arguing that complete equality of all people is possible. I am arguing that complete equality of all people is impossible. Good luck to my opponent.
lol, thank you. Oh wow, that's great. Thanks so much. I would like to change the statement. The new statement up for debate is- Complete Equality of all Living Breathing People is Impossible.
Against
Equality is defined as "as great as; the same as". I believe that all people could be equal if they all died. While this is not desirable, we would all be equal. When all people are dead, then they all are experiencing the same thing: nothing. Dead people are equal in: -Income…
Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. I await a rebuttal in the next round, perhaps.
64.
Collaborating with opponents has positive effects
For
=Definition of "sleeping with the enemy" CON concedes to my definition as well as the reasons he insisted to have it negated, so there is no reason to disconsider it at this point in the debate. =Re: Why CON cannot win this debate; the article "a" 1) What was marked as #1…
======================================== Definition of "sleeping with the enemy"| ======================================== CON starts by by disagreeing with my definition and stating that he wishes to define the definition in the literal sense. However, if you look at my…
Against
Me R2 Created Thursday 10 July 2008 Defs I concede my opponent's definition of SWTE. It's been shown superior. I will stand by my analysis regarding the article 'a'. I believe the intent of the resolution was that we debate whether sleeping with the enemy is good or bad…
Greetings, everyone. I am here to show that sleping with the enemy does not have a positive effect. === Sleeping with the enemy My opponent first defines "sleeping with the enemy." He defines it as any instance where enemies join forces to accomplish something. I must disagree…
65.
The universe's existence has a rational explanation
For
In this debate I will support the notion that "The Universe's Existence Is Explicable" -- in other words, it is more plausible to think that the universe has an explanation than its negation. What this explanation is is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of whether the…
Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has forfeited. Once again, I extend my arguments to this round.
Against
Would be unfair to post up anything now, official forfeit ^.^
Hello there! Glad to be debating with you over a philosophical topic! Thanks for bringing this topic up for debate, I'm sure it will be fun for both sides~ The Universe is an interesting concept to explore no matter which side of the debate you take up. As the Con, I believe I…
66.
The Marxist concept of the means of production is sound
For
Ok, The idea that the rich posses all the miraculous objects that allow production while production isn't possible without them is ridiculous.
The idea that the rich posses some miraculous object that allows production while production isn't possible without it is ridiculous.
Against
Well if the rich doesn't own them and the proletariat certainly doesnt. Who does?
I don't think its just one single object. The means of production is the total sum of all the resources involved to create a product.
67.
Humans are inherently vile
For
Forcing someone to convert to your religion via violence is never acceptable. Allow me to give an example. Before I do so, please note that I respect all religious beliefs and I am just giving an example. I am an atheist. If someone or a group of people tried get me to change…
Humans are definitely vile beings. We fight constant wars for pointless reasons. For example, in some parts of the world, people are battling to get others to convert to their religion. They will force others to convert by any means necessary. They will not stop until they…
Against
Indeed forcing people to accept a religion/ideology is unacceptable and it is our duty to fight back for our rights against such people. Evil is just a possibility of human nature just like kindness. What if an evil person starts acting kind? would you change the debate topic…
I accept the challenge. Thank you Pro for setting up this debate. I am supposed to argue that "Humans are not Vile Beings". It's crystal clear that Pro is making Faulty Generalization and Wishful Thinking Fallacies. Vileness is just one of our qualifies, it doesn't necessarily…
68.
Marxist theory of natural state disintegration is false
For
===Definitions===The "Marxist theory of natural State disintegration" may be aptly summarized by Marx and Engels themselves from the Manifesto of the Communist Party:Political power [the State], properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing…
Against
As per the rules, pro has surrendered this debate to me, by forfeiting.
Pro again forfeited this round, so I will too voluntarily forfeit this round.
69.
Stopping the invention of the atomic bomb would benefit humanity
For
Unfortunately, I've categorized myself wrongly and was supposed to be con for this debate. I'll forfeit, my bad.
Ah, I actually meant that I will be arguing as pro for this debate, sorry for my trivial errors as this is my first time debating online. First of all, thank you Brian for accepting my debate. Moving on, if any of us were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic…
Against
My opponent appears to be confused as to what his stance is supposed to be. He begins by saying "I will be arguing as pro for this debate" in his Round 2 speech, and goes on to give reasons why the invention of the atomic bomb was beneficial when it was, which is what I am…
I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate. I would like to begin by clarifying the definition of "beneficial" as "conducive to personal or social well-being"[1]. As Con, I must show that going back in time to stop the invention of the atomic bomb would…
70.
Reflections exist only in our minds
For
I repeat. You are mistaken. When you look in a mirror its impossible to see the image in front of the mirror. This includes concave, convex, straight and funny mirrors. I have loaded some photos of images in convex mirrors and surfaces. The virtual image appears upside down in…
Thanks Con I'm afraid you are mistaken. When we look in a mirror its impossible to see an object in front of the mirror. Unfortunately I can't load images when posing an argument, but if you view the image in my album it explains how a mirror allows us to see an object in one…
Against
Pro, you don't understand how the concave mirror works. From the site that provided the animation: "All of the lines of sight, regardless of their direction, will pass through the image location...different people are sighting in different directions; yet each person is…
Pro stubbornly ignores concave mirror reflections:"When we look in a mirror its impossible to see an object in front of the mirror."My response:Check the animation, the image location is an intersection of photons IN FRONT OF THE MIRROR; Pro keeps referring to plane mirrors,…
71.
Ghosts do not exist
For
I really hope you realize you're supposed to be proving ghosts exist.
Might want to put some evidence rather than that.
Against
show me evidence that lies exist
i have no beliefs
72.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem leads to meaninglessness
For
Con answers "A statement is either true or false. If TRUTH (the set of all true statements) is a subset of PROVABLE (the set of all statements which can be proven by the axioms of a mathematical system) and PROVABLE contains statements which are not contained in TRUTH, then…
Con Did not answer my question ie what Godel says makes a mathematical statement true you say "Why the meaning of truth is irrelevant: As my opponent's source Peter Smith says, Godel doesn't rely on the notion of truth, but rather the notion of proof. If a system cannot prove a…
Against
Since either a statement or its negation are true (law of excluded middle) and Godel's proof shows that neither the statement nor its negation can be proven to be true while remaining consistent with the axioms, what makes a mathematical statement true is irrelevant to Godel's…
A statement is either true or false. If TRUTH (the set of all true statements) is a subset of PROVABLE (the set of all statements which can be proven by the axioms of a mathematical system) and PROVABLE contains statements which are not contained in TRUTH, then PROVABLE…
73.
Beauty is an objective quality
For
critical point from the Instigator, (round 1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Desired Female Figure in the Eyes of Men Has Changed Drastically Over Time: These quotes from an article I found explain this pretty well: "Be it a female…
Instigator this topic is about Beauty is Objective with the Definitions: Objective: true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings (from Wikipedia) 1)Instigator agree Beauty is Objective 1.a)Instigator have strongly agreed there is…
Against
"Instigator this topic is about Beauty is Objective"Yes, I am aware, thanks."1)Instigator agree Beauty is Objective 1.a)Instigator have strongly agreed there is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media . he even supported us with plethora of sources…
Uh... Please try to speak in coherent English... I am really not trying to be rude and I mean the utmost respect but it is almost impossible to understand what you are saying most of the time.My Rebuttal:"1) this article is found random on internet, how trustful can it be 2)…
74.
Categorical imperatives do not exist
For
Thanks to Conservativepolitico for his response. Counter-Argument It appears that my opponent has cold-dropped my argument from Round 2 and has instead proposed a plan in which I rebut his, but he never rebuts mine (from Round 2). Furthermore, and more importantly, my…
IntroductionHuman beings do not obey moral laws like matter obeys the laws of physics. Physics sets laws in the form of boundaries. Thus obedience of these occurs within the realm of SHALL. (You SHALL do X, for there is no other option.) Obedience of moral laws occurs within…
Against
My opponent bases most of his counter arguments off of the fact that I gave no reaons for why these things exist. The Reason The idea of a categorical imperative exists when bound to an underlying moral force that connects all people together. For the sake of my argument we'll…
IntroductionIn order to fulfil the requirements of this debate I must show that categorical imperatives do indeed exist. To do this I will simply lay out the premise of a categorical imperative and show how it indeed does exist. I am going to lay out my argument here first.…
75.
Humans should adopt ethical egoism as a worldview
For
Me offering rebuttals to his round is going to open up arguments in my favor, so I'm vaguely going to touch on this due to Con saying he refused to argue for (a) then finally accepting mid debate that is he going to affirm (b). Why I win this debateCon has chosen to argue for…
=Overview=This is sort of troubling because of the route con has chosen to take. The previous round was for him to build a case, which he did not really do. Since the last round of the debate forbids making new arguments, it will be quite hard to offer some rebuttals if he…
Against
Pro has staked his prospects of victory upon a very minor concession I made, and that error is what damns him in this debate. Yes, it is true that some amount of societal benefit would result from the disappearance of moral disagreements, but that is outweighed a million times…
For the purpose of keeping this debate from becoming more muddled than it already is, I'm going to go ahead and stick with Pro's option B -- defending the status quo. All I have to do to win the debate is show that the status quo is better off than a world in which everyone…
76.
Suffering is good for people
For
I actually don't think my opponent is doing anything on the site anymore so I won't bother writing a huge case... Essentially what doesn't kill you makes you stronger through toughening you up thus suffering is good. It's a matter of whether or not one values happiness or…
Good-luck to you con.
Against
Okay, you too!
Suffering is bad. Suffering is bad because it is causing physical and/or pain to a victim (aka Nate Juice employee) Let's say, Nate Juice employee #1 is being tortured by Nate. This employee will be experiencing suffering due to the harsh conditions of the factory and Master…
77.
Rawlsian theory provides a justified basis for government
For
Sorry for the long delay, I had a lot of personal issues. Anyway, this is the first round for Freeman's tournament and an anticipated debate between me and my opponent. It's also been awhile since Ive debated - hopefully it's an enjoyable experience. I've made it 4 rounds since…
Thanks for the debate! I'll try to follow the format my opponent used, for the sake of clarity and convenience. Universal consent: The OP is specifically defined to comprise of rational deliberators who are set with the agenda of figuring out social policies - this is a…
Against
Thanks for a great debate, Skeptic. I had fun and hope to debate you again in the future, and hope you feel the same way. First, Pro has again ignored my first argument. To restate it: Rawls assumes that the people in the OP are not simply choosing between systems of governance…
Pro seems to have misunderstood my first point. I don't see how it was unclear, but I'll try restating it. Actors in the Original Position are deciding what kind of society they want. But they aren't just choosing systems of organizing society (like democracy or anarchy). Rawls…
78.
Supernatural phenomena do not exist
For
Definitions in this debate: supernatural - Event that is defying laws of nature (but not laws of logic) laws of nature - set of rules, by which events always happen exist - could be, can be or will be possible to register with human's senses (either directly or indirectly)…
No one person knows all laws of nature. Just because some person doesn't know a particular law of nature by which event occurred, doesn't mean it was supernatural. If my opponent is talking about people 2k years ago, only form of evidence that Jesus healed them is one single…
Against
I accept
Supernatural typically still involves natural factors, for example, Jesus rising from the dead. It's supernatural not because of the act itself (which is natural as the body comes back to life), but because of the cause (God). Same with the healings of Jesus and the miracles of…
79.
The problem of evil is not a valid argument against theism
For
For centuries, The problem of Evil has been the champion in Epicurean Philosophy which then evolved into modern Scientism which is a philosophy that many people hold to today. I challenge that the Problem of Evil rather then being good evidence against the existence of God is…
Against
yees
there is no problem of evil
80.
Free will is not an illusion
For
Yes but then again I could always live under a rock but I don't because God does not want that. This is yet another proof of religion. So in a way you are right. I do not control my thoughts, God does. He chose my parents as he chose everything else. Look at you, You just…
Yes you are the chooser of your thoughts. One minute I can be thinking about cofee than the next I can be thinking about cars. If you can't stop thinking for yourself who will your mom? You don't need to stop thinking because you can change your thoughts. I choose to live…
Against
In theory, Sure you can move thought from coffee to cars or vice verse. But you definitely can"t consciously decide to change thoughts or what to change your thoughts to. Any logical examination that traces your thoughts to their genesis will land in one of two places: physical…
Yes my brain is thinking thoughts, But I am not the chooser of those thoughts. I may stop thinking via meditation, But I cannot be the one who decides to stop thinking. You might say you wanted to stop thinking because you're sad. I would ask why you're stressed and why…
81.
Science can determine human moral values
For
blank.
Con has essentially staked his entire case on two premises identified this round. Let's see how he fares. Consider Con's own source [5]. Go directly to the paper cited by rationalwiki, and you will find this:"An essay by Sober (1994) entitled "Prospects for an evolutionary…
Against
Ave. I don't understand what implications Sober's paper is supposed to have. I don't disagree that you can make an ethical conclusion if you combine a factual premise with an ethical premise. I even quoted as much as in the previous round. The problem is that science cannot…
Ave. I want to make a preliminary note about how I'm organizing this round. Brackets with things like ''N1'' in them stand for ''Note one''. I created a section at the end of the debate called ''Notes'' if you want to understand my reasoning behind that statement. You don't…
82.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise
For
I'd like to let my opponent know that the gratitude he expressed is mutual and I thank him for accepting my challenge, brave as it may be, for I think my claims are reasonably irrefutable. A God that Requires Faith To clear something up, I'd like the voters to recognize that…
In the theological quest for proving the existence for God there are two types of supposed reasoning that are used to support its existence. In this round I will discuss those two types of reasoning and discuss why only one of them is valid and then proceed to indicate that a…
Against
However, I think I know where the problem in the argument he presented, lies. God, Faith, and ReasonMy opponent is arguing, that because God requires faith, that any reasoning used to arrive at his existence is contradictory. This, of course, is only true if faith and reason…
I accept, present your case.
83.
Morality is not objectively real
For
Your argument does not prove your point. Give me a set of objective morals that every human follows. You simply can not. Objective morals do not exist. It is a subjective concept created by man.
No one is immoral or moral in an objective view point. What is good to one person may be bad to another. There is no objective morality that exists. Because morality is subjective it is only moral based on your viewpoint and subjective morals. The same answer applies to your…
Against
poison=Unhealthy logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy(religion)
thats my point.. if reality is whatever you say clearly it dosnt exist then morality dosnt exist, and it is not subjective.. subjectivity exist, and it is not moral
84.
There are universal, objective moral values
For
I'm glad Con finally put forward terms and definitions critical to his debate. Objective: "... based on facts; unbiased."Value: "relative worth, merit, or importance..."Con went on to say, "There is no universal objective criteria that applies to all things which can be used to…
Con started the round with, "First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal."Con stated what "objective" was not, but failed to…
Against
Lets get the semantic argument over with. Per dictionary.com: Objective, adjective : not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased Value, n: relative worth, merit, or importance: right, n: a just claim or title, whether legal,…
Thanks for accepting. First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal. And when I said "values", I didn't mean "a numerical amount…
85.
The number zero does not really exist
For
pow!
why call zero?call none. no such thing as zero. zero= invisible.
Against
It's true that everything has to be something. 0 is more of an intellectual number. A thought. Let me give you an example, how many cars are there in the world? Close to a million or more right? That's a material number. But how many cars do i have? 0. I don't have a car.…
86.
Art without a discernible point is not art
For
Much of the Modern/Postmodern art of today has no discernible point. It is not beautiful, it does not take skill or time. In many cases it is meant to shock. This is not the function of art, and thus these "artworks" are not art at all.
My opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what art really is. He says that he has always thought of art as an "extremely broad term." Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art. According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human…
Against
"Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art." That's fair. I'll examine the definition of art as provided by my opponent. "According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as…
My opponent declares that art must pass certain standards in order to be categorized as art. I have a difficult time following his line of thought, as I have always envisioned art to be an extremely broad term. Going by my opponent's argument, we cannot logically conclude that…
87.
Thinking about something is pointless without knowing it
For
watching news is riding a unicorn
dont use your eyes
Against
I used my eye To create pumpkin pie then I fly to Mumbai
Oh snap! Looks like I cheezed ma opponent, so he is forfeiting in a lowkey way.
88.
Creating a utopia is impossible
For
To make sure you understand this we are showing our final evidence. No rebuttals. Only evidence. You may restate any previously said evidence but it cannot be rebuttal. Thank you for debating with me and I will jump right in! Utopias are the idea of creating a perfect society.…
Alright, to start, thank you for following the set up and being patient with my response. Now to the debate: First:"I will predicate my argument on the notion of human progress. However unlikely a true utopia may be, I would contend that it will ultimately be possible in the…
Against
Progress is progress. While humans may slip and falter, we move forward. With respect to that, virtually anything thing is possible. Therefore, Utopia, however unlikely, is possible. My thanks to my opponent for a spirited debate. See you in a perfect world!
The issue is this: By insisting that the definition of Perfection be limited to individual perception, you leave a gaping problem for yourself: Either, Utopia/Perfection is Objective and we may fail to realize it (my definition,) OR Utopia/Perfection is Subjective. If that's…
89.
Enjoying life matters more than contributing to society
For
My contentions: 1) Helping others is pointless unless it benefits you. 2) The most logical way to achieve a meaningful life, is to make yourself happy. As opposed to having a meaningful life by helping others and society. Opponents contentions (from my understanding): 1)…
Thank you for debating with me. ---------------------------------------- Humans are selfish by nature. Helping others may make someone feel good, but if that isn't what makes the individual happy it is ultimately pointless. Deep down most people get enjoyment out of helping…
Against
I will start by giving a short review and clarifictions of my three contentions and then finally refuting what the opponent has said and saying why there should still be a strong vote on the negation of this debate... (1) Helping Society - The reason I bring up helping out in…
Your welcome ------------------------------------------------ Okay on to my case and then afterwords I will refute what the opponent has said about this debate. Thank you also to the opponent for making the debate possible in the first place. CONTENTION 1 - Helping out in…
90.
The universe has an inherent purpose
For
It seems my opponent has failed to provide any evidence that God does not exist. The original premises were that if God does exist than then the universe has a purpose. If God does not exist then it is more likely that the universe has no ultimate purpose. For my opponent to…
>>The premise of this is to prove that the universe has ultimate purpose and thus existence of god.<< (Argument 1) No the argument is the other way round, if God exists then the universe must have a purpose. >>While the universe does indeed have a cause for coming into…
Against
Counter arguments 1) The premise of this is to prove that the universe has ultimate purpose and thusly the existence of god. In his first argument my opponent presents that the universe has come into existence and so, must have a cause for coming into existence. While the…
I accept. I will wait for my opponent to prove that the universe has ultimate purpose and god exists.
91.
Philosophy is a waste of time
For
Philosophy is a talking shop of Ideas. Its an Interesting journey for the self obsessed but rarely achieves much. Study something else.
If you feel the need to explain why we do things then study plumbing or carpentry . Philosophy is navel gazing and for wankers.
Against
Pro fails to provide adequate reasoning for why philosophy does not achieve much. It achieves plenty of things. 1) Science uses philosophy to advance it's studies on the universe. (1) 2) Philosophy majors essentially make higher pay than many others (2) 3) Philosophy helps you…
Philosophy is not a waste of time. Philosophy is a way to study the world, the mind, human nature, music, beauty, sex, love, aliens, etc. Everyone has a philosophical view of life, a certain way of attaining knowledge. How do we know what we know? What are the limits of our…
92.
Science is an unreliable means of knowing truth
For
My argument still stands.You are trying to prove science with science. That is circular.We know science is true because of science and we know that the science we're using to prove science is reliable because of science...That is circular. That is your argument.All arguments…
According to con, science is knowledge. To back up the claim that science is true, he is using knowledge (science). Talk about a circular argument, lol.I would give more of a reply, but I think that's all I need to say to refute the stupid and wacky claims of science.You can't…
Against
just prove it how it is wrong rather than judging my argument bez you are my opponent not you are a judge
i like to remind the pro it is debate and you are replying a joke lol......and you don't have the right to blame about science you are amateur boy......if i can't prove it right then prove it wrong ...
93.
Eternal life is possible for humans
For
My opponent has clearly backed out due to lack of arguments.
Everything suggests that we may live in a multiverse. This is backed up by most modern scientists. If we indeed live in a multiverse, it will indicate that not only there is a infinite number of 'you' out there, but it will also make you immortal. Multiverse would also explain…
Against
Eternal life does not make sense. If everyone had eternal life, then where did every single person on this Earth come from. First, if people were really living an eternal life, then why do we see people die? If eternal life was true, then no one would be dead, therefor, eternal…
I agree with your statement to a point. While I do agree with the possibility of the multiverse theory, I retain my doubts. The basic premise of said theory is that infinite universes exist therefore every situation you can imagine exists in some other universe. Given this…
94.
Nihilism will ultimately degrade human society
For
I'm very sad that my opponent would start a debate and then not debate; nonetheless, hopefully we can work something out to actually debate this topic in the future.
There's been a mistake in the positional arguments. I am against the idea that Nihilism will degrade mankind, however the debate labels me as "Pro." I forgot to cite the [1] http://www.nihil.org... With forfeiture, all of my arguments with stand.
Against
Nihilism is the philosophy that life is meaningless and there is no such thing as "morals". Presumably, this may be the ultimate form of Atheism, having Atheism deny the existence of a God/Deity. Before we continue on the matter relating Atheism and Nihilism, I will define my…
95.
Society should allow one legal night of crime yearly
For
All points extend.
Contention 1: Crime and unemployment. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has…
Against
1. Acceptance Round
Rebuttals: Contention 1: Crime and unemployment The pro stated "... there is a large percentage of people who want to try a crime of some sort..." How do you know that there is a large percentage of people who want to commit crimes? Unless you have information on conducted…
96.
People value individual deaths more than statistics
For
Agreed. I jumped into the debate a bit quick without getting my desired explanation across. I shall come up with a new and improved proposed debate in this round and then If you agree I shall create the debate and add you as the con side. (just so nobody else takes the spot…
Thank you for your response. Firstly, I fail to see the problem with my two thesis's. 1."People only react to a tragic death when there's a big story about it on the news or wherever, despite the same thing occurring all over the world daily on a vast scale." 2. "I feel as if…
Against
The example I gave of the daycare was referring exclusively to people reacting WITHOUT media involvement. I am not purposely trying to distort the debate, nor am I attempting to lead this debate further into obscurity. But your thesis's do differ, and what you wished initially…
I'd like to open the debate by stating the contrast between the two separate, diverging thesis's my opponent has offered. The debate title is "People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic." When my opponent stated that he will…
97.
A society's values are more important than its government's policies
For
Values held by society, and policies implemented by that society's government, have interaction with each other... the values feed into the policies, and the policies' results, in turn, have an impact on peoples' values. Both are deserving of attention; the position here is not…
Thanks again for your response, John. I appreciate your thoughts here.Policies are not merely "governed moral value," any more than an engineered object is "governed design goals." At its best, the engineered object works to perform its design goals well, but sometimes the…
Against
Value " The regard to that something which is being held to deserve. Policies " Prudent or expedient conduct or action. Policy is the greater importance as it is addressing the Governing of the political body which forms Government. Many values can say the same things,…
Moral Value is a public liberty. Principle is a civil order and civil order is always more beneficial to society than civil moral value. This is because it describes a governed standard. A precedent is War, the act of War only occurs with the removal of principle, and it is…
98.
The universe's fine-tuning suggests higher consciousness exists
For
A very good point Con raised was the lack of communication with the higher consciousness. Con Wrote "Can the supposed higher consciousness not figure out a way to communicate? Does it just not want to? Or does a higher consciousness simply not exist?" The logic goes something…
It is interesting when Con talks about a higher consciousness, it is assumed to be a form of supernatural magic. I propose that higher consciousness capable of design can be part of the natural order of things. The relationship of the higher consciousness to this universe could…
Against
I am afraid almost all of the arguments used by Pro in round three are red herrings(1) and do not show how a higher consciousness can be deduced from the observed fine tuning of the physical constants. Statements like "... the higher consciousness communicates to humans through…
My opponent proposes that the existence of a higher consciousness can be deduced from the fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe. It is my goal to show that no such deduction is warranted. In the first round my opponent does a good job of listing the various ways…
99.
Pascal's Wager provides a valid reason to believe in God
For
the real fall will kill you
so you didnt jump? you have until some point this day the thing about the bible is that the truth of it is not christian.. it is truth for me that there are rocks on the beach, im not a christian for accepting that from anyone..
Against
I will counter by elaborating on the fallacies of your latter statement which is trying to disprove my previously stated alternatives. The rocks that you determine to be a universal truth is a deductible fact that the rock is rightfully, a rock - because you can distinguish all…
It seems from that perspective, there is a terrible negation for the option of not jumping. Although an illogical order is given, it disregards the option of not adhering to that order. There are various alternatives to adhering to this absurd notion of believing and acting…
100.
Collaboration is better than competition in society
For
Apologies accepted bro. Sorry if you didn't get the resolution, so let me clear it up.I wasn't arguing for businesses to collaborate. I'm arguing for a collaborative economic system that does away with business, since essentially businesses are still competitive by…
Thank you DanK for your post. First I would like to point out that in the 1st round I explicitly said no rebuttals in the second round, which my opponent went ahead and violated. To counter my opponent, I am not saying competition completely is bad. I think friendly competition…
Against
While pro concludes that he has in fact stated and supported his resolution, which started simply with collaboration vs competition, which moved to collaboration and competition in business, and finishes with a global economy based on collaboration vs one based on competition.…
First, my apologies I did not intend to disregard your rule, just used to no rebuttal in the last round and assumed that's what you had meant. Moving on. While it may be that the U.S. and Russia could have been more productive had they collaborated, the fact is that they didn't…

How to use these debate topics

Vote, discuss, revote. Poll the room on the motion, give 5 minutes of discussion, then vote again and look at who changed their mind.
Four corners. Label corners strongly agree → strongly disagree; people move, then each corner makes its best case.
Switch sides. Halfway through, everyone argues the side they disagree with. It sharpens listening.

Run them live

Want every person to answer on their own phone, with a timer and a live leaderboard? Use these questions in an EngageSlide Vote · Discuss · Revote — free to start.

Tick questions on any page — your set is kept while you browse (or take the first 10 here) — and they become ready-to-play slides. What is EngageSlide?

Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 2

How to use these debate topics

Run them live

More question collections