Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 6

For

• I used 'unconsciousness' not in Freud's sense, but in a broad sense, which is 'the state of being uninformed or unaware' ("definition of unconsciousness"). The following is one of the many examples explaining my thesis. "People are unrealistically optimistic even when the…
• Do you think unconsciousness is predetermined and unchanged? What means "these thoughts"?

For

• If you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? You say you are a Christian, so your answer to this question must be yess or you are a fool making a mockery of things you do not understand. If you say yes, your sins are forgiven and you are…
• Are you trying to make a mockery of this debate? What is hard to understand about this debate?

For

• My opponent states his argument, If we exam his first paragraph he makes the statement "Nature isn't conscious, so it doesn't consciously control him..." while this immediately seems true an examination at the principle of my argument makes the conclusion that if God cannot…
• My opponents counter argument states, in short, "that Goodness is essentially Gods nature" This *common* avoidance of the question however clever does not answer anything. It is an attempt to split the dilemma into a trilemma, and does not succeed because the question remains.…

For

• Thank you for the response. ---------------------------------------- I will start with my opponent's case First you agree with me. Followed immediately by disagreeing with me on the same thing. You move onto say the existence of God is the cause of everything. Thus, determinism…
• Thank you for the delightful response. Thank you, furthermore, for the complaints. I will provide more clarity to my case after a few things. 1) "First, you state information regarding determinism only to in the last sentence state that free will is needed because it has a…

For

• I"m going to start my final argument by explaining the fundamental difference between philosophy and science. The important question that these fields ask is different. Philosophy asks the question, "why?" This meaning that the answer needs to have some purpose or meaning like…
• As I have stated in my comment previously the scientific method was an invention of humans that was based on the field of science. This method since its early adoption in the renaissance, as I see it, is the largest contributing factor to the advancement of our species. This…

For

• DefinitionsMy opponent seems to be focused on this issue, so let's resolve it using what has been said, as opposed to misrepresenting others. My opponent did not offer an alternative definition or an attempt to resolve any problems. Nor did he make clear his own disagreement in…
• Before making my argument, I wish to remind the readers that in R2 it was stated that "as my opponent wishes to shorten the debate (as stated in comments and private message), we'll cancel this round in order to address any maladies." In response, my opponent posted his own…

For

• This is not what I agreed to be Pro to. I forfeit. Indeed I could have paid better attention, but I'm afraid I didn't. Sorry.
• They both seem pretty good to me. We do indeed have our own private definitions and things we think of when a word is mentioned, and we cannot see into anyone else's mind. They both say pretty much that. Why wouldn't they work together?

For

• I will attempt to keep my conclusion as simple as possible.1. It must be remembered that scientifically, and philosophically the difference between living and non-living is only a matter of slight difference.2. Performing an action is not the same a making a choice. 3. Religion…
• I would like to address my opponents comments regarding my conduct. Firstly, I concede that it was "bad form" to not have a definition already presented at the beginning of the debate. I apologise for this, and I am well aware that ignorance of the common code of conduct is no…

For

• Okay, in order, your four points. 1) Faith is rational to the believer ^This is my point, it being rational to the believer has no weight whatsoever. Christians regularly tell me that they need no evidence, just faith. The problem with that is that you can have faith that…
• I define faith as belief without evidence. We should not believe things on insufficient evidence. If you here of a surgery that has only worked twice out of 500, you would opt for a better surgery. To teach faith is to teach the opposite of critical thinking. Not to mention…

For

• "Pro loses this debate because he has essentially agreed with my ontology of non-existence." No link between this supposed acceptance and the negation of the resolution has been shown, and neither has proof of the acceptance at all been provided. "He now clarifies that by…
• My opponent's analysis of the PSR fails due to the fact that he does not capture half of the principle. The PSR does not merely state that everything which exists must have a cause, but that everything which has a cause must exist (quoting an unchallenged claim from round one:…

For

• Nothing further.
• "No, because what I'm doing now is snapping cosmically in place - this, right here, is my destiny." You were going to do whatever it is that you're doing from the beginning. "if you haven't noticed already there's already 8,000,000,000 people proving your theory wrong by being…

For

• I already gave you some arguments, But since you're being stubborn. . . 1. In a sense, Science does violate our logic, But it also brings us to a more reasonable one. Let me explain: lately, Most of my answers have been revolved around the idea that we can never understand what…
• Just browse and see. https://www. Quora. Com/Does-science-ever-violate-any-laws-of-Logic

For

• you make some very good points but here are a few things. canada was technically not at war, for they did not fight. asa you clearly stated in your argument. and vietnam was not an intervention it was instagated by our U.S. Army, to prove some masculinity reason. all in all we…
• freedom is most certainly not free. that what you have posted is simply a definition from a dictionary. use YOUR words in this. i don't know if you are against or with from that post. war is usually what we use to preserve our freedom. it cost lives and the monetary investments…

For

• That was indeed a rather strong argument Con and it would have been effective HAD I said that destiny was equivalent to our desires but I had not and it is not. My definition defines that destiny is "a predetermined course of events [caused by an act of choice] often held to be…
• As my Resolution is posted above, I will begin by quoting Merriam-Webster's dictionary to eliminate all sources of personal bias or otherwise opinionated versions of the definition. M. W. states that destiny is "a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible…

For

• There are many situations in which I notice many possible actions before me. As I test each option, my biology remains in all relevant respects the same-therefore no cause fundamental to biology. My environment remains in all relevant respects the same- therefore no cause in…
• "This is simply not true. Science has fairly well established that most of what you see is in fact a hallucination." I think you are confusing the terms "Hallucination," i.e. that which you see that is certainly not there, and "Perceptual set", i.e. that which you see as a…

For

• In this final round I will conclude and cite all my sources. Once again: I wholly accept a debate is not the only way to acquire knowledge: however this discussion was not whether debates were the only platform for doing this; but based on whether debates were useful and…
• I would wholly agree that a debate is not the only way to acquire knowledge of different people, ideas, art, or concepts: however this discussion was not whether debates were the only platform for doing this; but based on whether debates were useful and important methods in…

For

• Perception is reality. Reality is perception.
• I appreciate my opponent taking time out to entertain this debate. I also find these questions interesting because we haven't developed the method/instruments/knowledge necessary to reliably test, measure, or quantify such new thinking. And, yes, I should have elaborated on my…

For

• (TOPIC #1: LYING IS WRONG) I expect my opponent in this debate to substantiate that (LYING) is the (RIGHT) thing to do IN a DEBATE. I will explain the Opposite. (TOPIC #2: STRAW MEN ARE FOR FARMS) I would also like Con to show that Straw Men don't belong on farms, but can…
• My wife and I are enterained by the pathological lying that has occurred over the course of this debate. Since my structure and my grammar herein,(though i think what CON means is punctuation) is in question; a) "Pro has went from a self proclaimed atheist to christian…

For

• So many people will say that they would give their life for that of a friends but this type of thing cannot be answered directly with a definite yes but more with a "I would like to believe that I would". This is completely a situational type of thing where the situation that…

For

• Round one: acceptance/brief opening statement.Remaining rounds are debate.Opening StatementGood people have the right to disobey bad laws. A bad law is any manmade legislation that infringes upon an individual's natural rights.
• As my conclusion, I'll simply post an excerpt from Wikipedia that could give readers an idea of where to start researching this topic further."A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been ruled illegal but do not directly violate or threaten the rights…

For

• Morals is more important than laws to an extent. If someone is being bullied for example and teachers are not helping or anyone else someone should have the right to stand up to the bully and confront him without the police convicting him as a felon. However if it goes to far…

For

• If inalienable is what you say it is, then we don't have an inalienable right to life either, because people can end their own life (euthanasia). "I wouldn't really call it affirmative action for apartments. And why is he not allowed to discriminate, assuming we use your…
• You make some good points. I will respond in CAPITALS Ok well lets start out with the word inalienable, and what it means to have inalienable rights. You say that "Inalienable means cannot be transferred nor surrendered except by the person who possesses them." The problem with…

For

• Now you said that determinism must be the complete opposite of free will therefore your whole basis for argument was that all you had to do was disprove my stance to prove yours. You said that multiple times: "First, I'll not prove that free will is not a fallacy. Why? Because…
• I'd like to ask my opponent to share the BoP. By that I ask that he not only prove that my stance on Determinism is false beyond a reasonable doubt but also state arguments reinforcing the opposing view of "Free Will" with examples/observations/or socially accepted data (i. e.…

For

• I greatly respect my opponent for their arguments thus far, and thank them for the enjoyable banter and debate that we have engaged in. 1. How might an absolutist be inconsistent? One of the universal laws of Philosophy states that all things have an opposite, ergo, truth and…
• I shall now begin with my rebuttals and further arguments. Rebuttals: 1. In order to argue absolutism, one must acknowledge truth in all forms. Stating that arguing absolutism falls prey to the fallacy of circular reasoning, only proves absolutism is self-evident. For example,…

For

• If you wish to truly hinge your argument on "something exists" then so be it. You only believe something exists because in your mind this is "rational". You in fact even listed all these "rational" arguments in support. But in this debate, the existence of rational arguments…
• Absolute knowledge is impossible for a set of simple reasons 1. all information we gain about our world is derived from our senses. 2. all our senses can be deceived. 3. Therefore, we can never be absolutely certain about any information we "know". Ever watched the matrix? Same…

For

• It seems to me that your argument is dealing with a definition of philosophy that doesn't apply to the definition that actually exists. The word philosophy itself originated from ancient Greece and literally means the "love of wisdom." You can argue that not "pooping in the…
• Philosophy over time has rarely dealt with the most important question. How do we live best in this lifetime? Philosophical content and argument is too oftentimes tied up in semantics and questions that have no bearing on our lives. It's not related to the common man and has…

For

• Round one is aceeptance No complicated words Don't be rude Be Nice Bad luck

For

• The main point is that more taxes mean more public improvements that would save people money and lower homelessness rates. 1: People could get free mental help funded by the government. 2: There would be government-funded help for homeless people. 3: I'm not sure, I am quite…
• No, You misunderstood me I meant that there should be more strict laws and regulations to protect against such inhumanities and crimes. That poor oncologist is being stripped of their rights. As for taxes, Take Denmark. Denmark has very high taxes and is one of the happiest…

For

• V=0. I objectify that fact; it is subjective. (2). You are the result of me swallowing both, the red pill and blue pill when offered by Morpheus. The whole universe is made up of 1's and 0's, both outside and inside of space-time. But never just 0, that would just be incredibly…
• Nothing is a fact. Anybody with an opinion will not believe me, because all that there can be; is opinion. You may reference anything you'd like, post any source you'd like. Anything you wish to say, you may say. Everything is up for debate. All subjects and topics are…

For

• A reason why people donate is to evade taxes. The fact is that Money drives your life. And Money can buy Happiness!!! Give a homeless man some money, and look at the joy on that person's face. That joy on his face will make you feel good and you too will be happy. If this…
• In today's world, money is an important aspect of our lives. We crave money if we lack it. And that, my friends, Is the basic cause, that money is more powerful than intellect and emotion. Let us take the case of the terrorist Ajmal Kasab, a member of the Lakshar-E-Taliba, who…

For

• i was trying to be clear.. but im plainly and simply saying, if 1+1 equals 3, is math then true? but in comparison to stones in my hand 1=true=something
• if you take a stone in your hand, and again put 1 more stone in it, and now you have added 3 stones to your hand, is math then true?

For

• I addressed your question in Round 2. I stated that God created evil so yes, it is therefore part of his "plan". The question I asked was how it is possible for God to have created evil and the explanation I gave dealt in part with your assertion that if God created evil then…
• As mentioned earlier in the debate, the purpose of this debate is to show that the argument of evil/suffering is insufficient to disprove the existence of God. The default position is not, that since this particular argument fails to prove the non-existence of God, that God now…

For

• AveArguments extended.Vale
• AveArguments extended.Vale

For

• 1. Existence a. (1)She used the axiom by her own definition incorrectly. Only Objective empirical things are real. Existence is Existence, it's not physical or Objective it doesn't exist. (2) Leibniz says Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He meant…
• 1. Existence a. I meant it was a Tautology. The Law of Identity teaches nothing that you don't already know, was goes in is at best synonymous with what comes out. b. I assume you accept my message that Existence cannot exist in "reality" because you're now disproving by theory…

For

• As this will be my last chance to do so, may I commend my opponent on a well argued, respectful debate. Perhaps I cold begin by asking the Con to concede a point, while agreeing it does not strictly endorse the premise of the debate. Con has sought, with some success, to show…
• May i start by similarly thanking Nichlaspanda for not only joining the debate, but doin g so in such a positive, thoughtful and interesting manner. Your response has at least focused my view, even if I do not necessary think it has refuted it. I would talk about your citation…

For

• I believe complete world peace that so many humans want would be detrimental to our world. Death is a sad population control that exists and keeps out world balanced. From World peace, we would suffer much less casualties and that would lead to overpopulation. Overpopulation…

For

• belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it a fact is a past observation, fact=knowledge=memory of physical experience i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it possibilities are false, not real, as i dont know, possibility has 2 sides, imagination is…
• imagination is false, and physical experience is true, 0 and 1. know is true, belief is doubt information is the opposite of matter information is false and truth you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not…

For

• Con is clearly making an appeal to semantics, attempting to weave a new argument (and a new burden of proof) from secondary and tertiary definitions of the word "superior". Considering the debate title and my opponent's opening round, I would argue that it's pretty clear which…
• Superior - higher in rank, status, or quality https://www.google.com... My opponent claims that Humans are not superior (higher in rank, status or quality) to animals because: 1. Supposedly the ecosystem thrives in our absence, while it crumbles if any other animal vacates it's…

For

• 5. Anger had taken over because it is a powerful emotion that must not be tempered with. Her initial decision was to let it take over, consciously she knew what she was doing, and what she was doing was wrong. 6. The decision to enact revenge on her husband was what influenced…
• 4. What you are saying is right, anger is a danger when it is acted upon. In this scenario it was acted upon, because Medea herself recognized that anger is the master of her plans. She herself stated anger to be "the source of the greatest troubles for humankind." She herself…

For

• It strikes me as odd that arguers and debaters here like to throw around "burden of proof" as though it makes sense. "Its your burden", "you lose because you didnt satisfy the burden", "you placed the burden on the WRONG side". I assert that the Burden of Proof IS a fallacy.…

For

• I apologize for the misspelling, for I am a freshman in high school, so I lack the literacy level of a graduate or a "talented literate" (I tend to lack in grammar also). And you're right, this is a debate, so I will try to spell correctly next time. Warning to opponent, this…
• I believe that mankind is inherently evil. Many people are good, but most of the time man is driven to evil, through crime, revenge, or war. Men place themselves above each other through god, or politics, but what they don't know is all people are equal. If you have different…

For

• I would not like to see any sources on this one. My opponent will most likely argue that music is perception (which is true) and that therefore no list could be made. He'll be able to find plenty of sources to prove this, but if that is how the debate will be decided then there…
• Although now I do feel proud, I'm also a bit dissapointed that the talk will you will be over so soon... I've actually had the talk with my dad (whom is a great music fan) and he stated that the list of melodies, won't be the same as the list of actual songs (as they are, with…

For

• Existence:the fact or state of living or having objective reality. I don't believe we can say we exist. Open to being wrong.
• Irrational about being unsure of our existence is better than finding purpose in religion. Religion is based on belief not rationality. If we find the answer to our existence we might find objective purpose, Religion for as long has its been around has not provided one. You…

For

• haha i sitll dont know why you we wasted the time here contention 1 they are being "forced" by being scared into what to belive! subpoint- i meant to also introduce the idea that mindlessly following others is wrong also (even though technically pretty much thinking anyhting…
• thanks bro for taking this nonsense case My oppenent misterpreted my first contention I meant that because they use "God's" power to gain control of a persons freewill or scaring them to do what anyone wants them to subpoint A it is wrong to force your child belief system to be…

For

• false=imagination true=personal physical experience of now kNow=Now only now is true future is false, belief=future, knowledge=past knowledge=remember=past
• unknown=alien=false truth is not false, truth is the opposite of false only know is true bad=unresonable good=resonable=knowledge=memory of joy

For

• The fact that we have to learn neither proves nor disproves the claim that absolute knowledge is possible. It is possible that there might be some bit of knowledge that, once learned, we can be absolutely sure about, in which case the necessity of learning does not contradict…
• I believe that absolute knowledge is possible. My opponent, if someone agrees to this debate, will take the converse position: Absolute knowledge is impossible.

For

• Go to the link but vote here, thanks.
• Firstly, I want to say thank you to my esteemed opponent for this debate. He has a great reputation as a debater, and I look forward to his certainly strong case.We must first start with the basic principle of what is morality, or what is ethics. Of course, if ethics isn't…

For

• He defended the KCA remarkably well in spite of having to deal with objections which normally don't come up in this tired old topic. I'll make this round a bit shorter since it's meant mostly as a conclusion to our arguments. Burden of Proof. Again, my points *did* go to show…
• ===A priori defense===Con's arguments comes down to two points. First, foundational beliefs are necessary for the grounding of knowledge, and, second, the grounding of knowledge is necessary given that the alternative (global skepticism) is unjustifiable. Con makes some other…

For

• I understand that the Merriam Webster dictionary is a reputable source of definitions, however it is quite clear that it was not written from an anarchist's perspective and that its definitions are not particularly applicable to the theory. Self-government in this case should…
• Okay, since we appear to be going down the definitions route I must state that the definition of anarchism you have provided is simply incorrect. First off, the lack of government is only true with regards to government as a hierarchical structure, with rulers. This does not…

For

• Space left blank as agreed.
• It is a true dichtomy. What else can there be? You gotta give a third. You did not