Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 22

For

• People only care about winning debates, not about whether they're right or wrong.
• 1. I have not misstated the definition of cognitive dissonance, though it was incomplete. (please note that I did not do this on purpose, I just assumed there was nothing else to it, which was a mistake on my part). But the basic idea is still holding (or be confronted by) two…

For

• . . . ::My case clarified:: It's clear at this point that the debate has been muddied some-what. It's probably my fault for not being clearer in the last round. I shall endeavour to be as clear as possible in this round. There is a reason why not a single professional…
• . . . Thanks to KRFournier (one of my favourite Christian debaters on this site) for taking the challenge. He has provided an attempted short refutation of not only my argument, but every single version of the argument from evil. He has also provided a (little excessive)…

For

• 1. your i apologize for not understanding your point at the beginning, however this resolution does not say the word anything, or imply by any means that it is saying the word isn't possible. 2.The very fact that impossibility is possible makes the statement false, you do not…
• You could not be more wrong in order for a statement to be false the components must exist. False is defined as not true by Merriam webster's dictionary is . Truth is defined as the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality by Merriam webster's as…

For

• Refuting my opponents arguments:"P1 commits the fallacy of redefinition. A cause is a "producer of an effect, result, or consequence. "2 Pro's definition is rather convenient, since built into it is the notion that a cause must be natural. It will become apparent that this…
• The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentClassical argumentP1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.P4: Since no scientific explanation (in terms of…

For

• I can"t provide proof of why this moral system is fundamentally true because you would need to know everything to provide an explanation of a set of moral rules that hasn"t been found yet. I"m not arguing that this fundamental truth can be used, Or is in any form practical,…
• I am arguing the point that, For something to be considered as "morals", It can not be subjective. By definition morals can"t differ from persons to person, Otherwise those aren"t morals. A moral is a principle, And a principle is a fundamental truth. A fundamental truth can"t…

For

• Yes, the extended universe is still valid for information. The conclusory statement should be a concession or rebuttal to the point that the prompt is a better model for living than it's counterpart in the universe or modern systems. As I stated before, I believe that the Sith…
• In this debate, I am referring to the Philosophy as well as the code of the Sith organistions seen in the fictional Star Wars universe, (extended and canon), and its application to the real world. I believe that the Sith philosophy, if modified to a certain extent, can create a…

For

• My opponent has convinced me in regards to this debate please give all seven points to him. (sorry I was a bit of a pushover but I realized my view was far to simplistic).
• I will just state a few definitions before starting. Ethics will be defined as: "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.". Situational ethics is defined as: "Ethical decisions that follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute…

For

• Thanks you for responding so quickly, and providing the basis of my argument. First lets start with the BIV argument. You kindly proved that we cannot deduce anything from our experiences and senses, which is fine with me. I'm going to assume your reasoning on reasoning is…
• This argument is addressing the question "Are there absolute truths about existence?" and I will let con decide all the definitions if he is willing. Let the debating begin.

For

• I hope my opponent's forfeit of the previous round does not undermine his credibility, as he has made some good points and intelligent arguments. I would like to conclude by saying that looking back, humanity has done some very wicked things. From the millions slain in war to…
• Yes, but in human history, the bad things we have done greatly outweigh the good things. True, most people are not evil all the time, and true, those were basic and childish examples, but I have some more. The fact that the human mind has created atrocities like gas, guns, the…

For

• yeah vote me for FF
• Ff

For

• The Law of Non-Contradiction, that is, the principle that "[it] is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong [20] to the same thing and in the same relation." (Aristotle, Metaphysics; IV; 1005b) I Propose that this principle is universal as well as…

For

• As much as CON might enjoy conflating the terms "indisputable" and "objective", I would like to point out that they are not identical and I have made absolutely no claim that "morality" requires the quality of "objectivity". I would like to politely ask CON to please focus on…
• I am honored that CON has decided to participate in this debate. However, there seems to have been some conclusion jumping. The concept of "objectivity" is outside the scope of this discussion. I am making a very simple and perfectly logical statement based on the common…

For

• My opponent's argument is part semantics, and the other part just a weak point. =====Counterarguments===== "Now, to set the parameters:" ---->You do not set the parameters. I, BEING THE INSTIGATOR, has set the parameters. You can not expect to come into a debate and start…
• =====Counterarguments===== Because psychological egoism is an empirical doctrine, I need to find only one example or instance where it can disprove this notion. I will first refute my opponent's only claim, then move on to bring up other points of why psychological egoism is at…

For

• My arguments do not imply time itself is static. "Time itself is not flowing thing" does not mean 'time itself is static.' The time itself is also not the static thing. We just express the time as the static or flowing thing.
• Even though we express that time flows, we can also express that time is a fixed thing, and things move from time to time. Therefore, time itself is not flowing thing.

For

• While I applaud my opponent's efforts of research and presentation, I urge readers not to be fooled by verbosity. Con's seemingly eloquent rebuttal gives the appearance of content and depth where none actually exists. == Response == Con begins their rebuttal by objecting to the…
• **Closed Debate - comment to acceptFull Premise: The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. "Sound" is defined as "a logically valid argument that withstands all scrutiny." Simply put - if Con can present evidence or argument that successfully dismantles the Kalam, Con wins.…

For

• I agree that taking an opinion like "abortion is right" and backing it up with a statistic to the effect of the number of lives it has saved doesn't make it "right". But that doesn't mean that different people do not, in their own realities have senses of right and wrong.You…
• I'm not quite sure how your argument shows that people do not have different sets of right and wrong. By your vet own admission, some people believe that racism is right whereas under certain schools of thought it would be wrong. Those would be two different sets of people…

For

• Hello everyone, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, I haven't been able to find a good time to debate. I'm going to make this short and sweet. We are not good as a whole. We corrupt all that we touch, all that we influence dies, or comes close to us. We are mean to each…
• I do apologize, I misread some points on your profile. I must point out that my opponent does not attempt to pose any counter-arguments, he solely seeks to criticize my own. It seems as though my opponent was only focusing on the negative, and was nearing the point of attacking…

For

• I forfeit.
• It is an interesting argument, but it forgets the fact that philosophy has never benefited of anything. Philosophy are never the reality but the opinion of a boring man, my proofs are Alan Watts was nothing but a man writing a diary about his views on Zen Buddhism and he is…

For

• imagine that you jump from a cliff and smash on the bottom.. you didnt die see, you were already dead in there there is no logic in fantasy.. thats why superman can exist in there
• i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive all my points are true, you havnt even come near my arguments, and yours are in all ways insufficient, its like you are trying to figure out what adding is and then multiplying with infinity just to find out what adding…

For

• Gods' moral perfection Let's address the various issues my opponent has with this. First he asks what the difference between heaven and earth would be if humans were perfect. I find this irrelevant. This would assume that there needs to be a substantial moral difference. That…
• (Sorry this is rushed. )First off, my opponent is correct in saying I am using the logical problem of evil, but as stated before, my arguments do also stray to the evidential problem of evil. "Plantinga's Free Will Defense"This argument entails numerous problems which I will…

For

• and why do you do things in order to please God? because you think that it makes you a better person. you think that the gods want you to do so, because you fear them. you fear that they'll punish you if you don't. you believe that you are better off following whatever God your…
• I just had this epiphany about how everything humans do is because of their self interest and because it serves them in some way. selfish is but a trait we cant, and shouldnt have to, amputate out of a human such as ourselves. Everything we do serves us in one twisted way or…

For

• Since you already conceded that the Proposition is a truism [even though you meant only mine and others understanding of it] you surrendered the debate. It does no good to try to back-peddle and claim that your understanding was in reality and mine was in conceptualism. For to…
• You have already conceded to the Affirmative (Pro) of this DEBATE twice. Once in your first sentence and another in your second sentence. In your first sentence you stated that the proposition 'Ultimate Good and Ultimate Love Are Metaphysical' were a truism. A truism, According…

For

• End is more important then means

For

• That's ok you don't have to argue about something you don't believe in. Lets just judge by who can pull out the coolest quote in the last round. I'll go first. "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The…
• That is what my argument is! I'm glad we agree but I kind of wanted to have a debate here.

For

• My initial argument will be a very short one (I dislike long and complicated debates). Definitions God: An all-powerful, all benevolent being who created everything that exists. The problem of evil states that God cannot exist because evil exists. If there was an all-powerful,…

For

• "but that there is a right and wrong, no matter how you perceive the world."I will be arguing that not everyone has the same views. Right and wrong is subjective. The evidence of this claim is evident by the existence of this site. We are on this site because we have views that…
• I believe that right and wrong is a perception. If someone disagrees then I hope to have fun with them.1-acceptance2-posistions3-rebuttals4-summarization/rebuttalsRight-in accordance with what is good, proper, or justWrong-not proper or usual; not in accordance with…

For

• why should some rich politician tell me what i can and can't do? if i want to smoke crack let me smoke crack. if i want to kill in revenge why not? the law is stupid and pointless. stop bossing me around.
• Animals live without law. why can't we? there does not have to be law because we are animals. our ancestors lived without law. they survived.

For

• https://ledonc.files.wordpress.com...
• 1. If consciousness is volitional, it can still be causal ­­- it is merely causal in the way that its nature requires, and the nature of the soul is to be able to choose what it will do and what its exact identity is. In this way, the soul can choose its cause, keeping intact…

For

• Let begin 1st person perspective- Your personal perspective, taking into account only what you perceive.(just like in a story) 3rd person detached- observes all things that happen as if looking at them, takes into account every attribute in a situation except the experiences…
• con fails to see the difference in seperation of perspectives.extend

For

• 1.) While she may have gone on a killing spree, she did try to right her wrongs and try to make the life for the children much easier. To Medea, she did the right thing because at least in the end, her children would not have to suffer any more than they already would have.…
• 1.) Medea's main goal was to protect her children. Without her, who is going to protect the children from the wrath of the kingdom? Because Medea killed the King and his daughter, she would obviously not be let off scot-free, even if she ran away. Not only that, but if she did…

For

• Frist, I'm not a native English speaker, don't expect my grammar to be perfect. Second, the statment did work. How do you know animals exist and you didn't imagine them. Third, I explained my sphere view because I wanted you to see my point. And the forth thing you said, I…
• But how are we to know that animals and other beings but the individual perceiving the existence of beings really exist? Maybe I imagined that you exist, that this site exists, that other humans exist, that the color red exists, and so on. Maybe the Moon doesn't exist beyond my…

For

• I must apologize to the readers for my opponent's conduct. Not only has he elicited no original thought, but he has sought to undermine my acclamations with little more than subjective banter that borders on tautology. Nihilists believe in the abscence of meaning from all…
• The Government maintains that the premise of nihilism is one which betrays the existentialism of preconceived morality, and is therefore a self-debilitating notion. The concept of nihilism is one which advocates the message that all individuality must be suppressed, for life…

For

• The resolution seems rather self-explanatory. Pro will make the argument that Hume was more important than Kant in the subsequent deveopment of philosophy. Con will make the opposite argument, being that Kant was more important than Hume.The definition of important will be in…
• . http://www.youtube.com...

For

• My opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that the costs outweigh the benefits, and therefore I cannot respond properly.
• My opponent is still alive. This shows that he has chosen to live life, thereby meaning that he has decided that the benefit of living life is greater than the costs.

For

• Hmm.. Well, where do I start? Let's start with some definitions... Justify/justification -show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground/explanation of some action or belief Ends justifying the means/ends in justification of the means - The consequences of an action dictate…
• As you said in the comment section, this shall be an introduction. I'm David lol I look forward to what you have to say next round

For

• The only way I can know anything is by the knowledge given to me by someone or something else. This can happen by learning from my parents, my society, everything I come into contact with from the day I was born until the day I die. This is why two human beings who live in a…
• The answer is that I can't as confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume. Without the possibility of knowledge, I am left with belief: belief about all things, material or abstract. Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real,…

For

• Here is my response, given in an attempt to clean up and strengthen the case a bit. Response to your rejection of P1 With the complex ideas you suggest you still need someone to do the thinking. It is not inconceivable that an evil demon has done this thinking for us- since…
• P1: All ideas come from impressions. P2: You never have an impression of yourself. C: Therefore, the self does not exist The self's nature is such that it exists throughout our lives unchanging. An impression of the self must continue unchanging through time. There is no such…

For

• Beginning of Existence, RevisitedMy opponent says:"Everything in this case refers to literally everything. There is no added distinction, such as, 'everything in the Universe', or 'everything that we see'. The word 'everything', in context, literally means everything."This is…
• The classical Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is as follows[1]:1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; 3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. I will be arguing that…

For

• I am here to reveal something fundemental about how the brain works, I will show you exactly why emotion is the key to all decisions. Many people think that they are mostly reasonable, that at the end of the day they relly on reason to make their decisions, but this is simply…
• no semantics or trolling, we use the common sense definitions and work out the kinks during the debate. The response time will be 24 hours! 8000 characters in each response.My goal will be to state that any decision a human being makes is based on emotions alone. This isn't to…

For

• DefinitionsNihilism - the denial of all existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.Ridiculous - deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.

For

• In my last round I responded to my opponent"s objection to my argument. Let"s see his response. First, he mischaracterized my statement by saying "Pro states that any possibilities I that I can think of that make God impossible, are God himself." But what I said was "It doesn't…
• Did he offer a defeater of the argument that I presented? I don't think so. It is worth mentioning that he accepting my definition of God, and he also accepted the validity of the argument. So, where do we disagree? He said "the problem with the argument seems to be P1". So let…

For

• I'm defending it by saying that yours is wrong and also you are not defending your statement.
• I believe my opponent is using a red herring here, I am indeed talking of religious truth because without truth then there is no certainty and nothing is reality. One just have and identify truth in in order to live day by day without forgetting who each person is and why they…

For

• Hmmmm. .. . Lets start with a few examinations of past rounds. My opponent round 1: My opponent instigates a case. Round 1: I gleefully point out that I am the contender in this debate and that my opponent is the instigator, I go on to point out that he brings up 0 evidence for…
• My opponent begins his second round stating that I have offered no evidence except for Jesus. Sweet, fine by me, my opponent has so far offered 0 evidence compared to my 1 piece of evidence. Thus my opponent so far is conceding to me winning this debate. He goes on to accept…

For

• regardless how one feels that his action is carried out by his or her own free will, the truth is chemicals can move you to make decisions for example in the delusional, which many say that one may become love drunk, or delusioned. Chemicals do control the brain, and we do not…
• Yes i agree, will or thought, does play in our choices, though it is the chemical composition of the brain that plays out our individual will, when we think, we are in fact using chemical data, the product of a distinct reaction, psychology has placed emotions, and associated…

For

• I am not condemning their beliefs and spouting their religious convictions just because it contradicts with my belief. It is just that: "If God no longer assumed control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomina, and giving no supernatural revelation, how did he…
• Deism is a belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but…

For

• It is in my belief that objective morality exists. Con must argue that it doesn't exist. First round must be an argument in response. This a serious debate.
• Oh, right. I forgot about that rule. I suppose we can redo it.

For

• I'll forego this speech, as I lack time. I'll rebut my opponent's arguments and make my own after the following speech.
• Thesisthe resolution is kinda vague but this could be an amazing debate, with an interested opponent involved. Here's what I'm trying to get at in this debate. Should we value the truth over what may be best for us. Let's take this reasonable example. Here assume god isn't…

For

• Multiplicity in LawCon's first counter contains two essential points. First, Con argues that ideological structure wouldn't be singular in a state of polycentric law. The second point is similar to the first, but instead argues that a neutral mechanism or arbiter wouldn't be…
• In this round I'll provide a rough constructive case in favor of anarchism and its viability. I trust Con realizes the BoP is shared as per the R1 explanation of the resolution.Contention I. Polycentric vs. Monocentric Organization.One of the main differences between statist…

For

• Con; the reason why I did not expand more or provide a counter argument to your religion argument is because it drifts off from the original topic. You say that to some faith is evidence? My point exactly, people need evidence to back-up their claims. Christianity does not…
• Con, you begin your argument by claiming that regardless of where the pendulum swings there is equal amount of both on either side. False, your statement is false. My argument has been that evidence is more important because it stands alone. Evidence without belief is still…

For

• This would have been a good debate.
• One forfeit will equal loss of conduct, two will equal 7 point loss.