Philosophy Debate Topics for Students — page 8

For

• Tragedy is necessary for many reasons, one large one is the following; catastrophic events are not only wake up calls for those that witness it, but also serve as a reminder that tragedy is inevitable, and we will never be able to stop it. However, we can use the past, and…
• I believe that as long as there is, and there always will be, evil, there will and must be as much of it as there is good. Take the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Though there were many hardships, it was, on a larger scale, beneficial. These attacks showed us that the…

For

• Before I begin, I must ask that my opponent remain cool during the entire debate. The demeaning tone is not very conducive to academic discussion. With that, I'd like to begin. My opponent opens up by saying that the existence of such a stone is a logical impossibility. This…
• I'm a little perplexed by my opponent's acceptance round post. As I have understood the way debating works on this website, the first round generally consists of the words "I accept". While I, myself, do enjoy being particularly verbose at certain times, even I doubt my ability…

For

• con goes against the what philsophers have commonly called truth. eg morality etc. even beyond morality, sure there are other kinds of truth. but con hasn't gotten into other truth, just word games. con hasn't established anything new there, so i can't respond to much of…
• con is just playing a bunch of games, at best. truth in those situations is: scientists define the parameters for what constitutions a planet, and they define how many planets there are based on best available observation. that is the only truth we can really establish. based…

For

• I find this to be an interesting topic (ethics in general is interesting; I refused to be bored with it) and I hope a worthy opponent can accept this as I'd desire a hearty exchange. I noticed that there are some moral relativists on this website, notably Kleptin. I'd like to…
• I suspect the main cause of disagreement is my opponent's failure to conceptually grasp what I mean between the two; it happens a lot and is in fact why prescriptive cultural relativism was popular among liberal college undergraduates a few decades ago (though it's still…

For

• The only possible selflessness would be choosing to deny your desires simply because they're YOUR desires to deny regardless of whether those desires were "selfish" or "selfless".
• Selflessness is a redundant word

For

• I suspect that the source of you confusion is that you still do not realize what an "extraordinary claim" is. What you must realize is that an extraordinary claim, by definition, is a claim that prior to the claim being made very weak or no evidence (or even evidence to the…
• "Evidence, then, should be understood as that which sufficiently establishes a claim as actually true and not just verisimilitudinous" Well, I really wish you would have read what I said about absolute proof in round 1. But since you probably have not I will repeat myself.…

For

• Thank you to the Con for responding.(A) Response to ConI do not know if Con is even serious in his first negative case. His only argument is: Jesus says there is purpose. Science proves that Jesus exists. Therefore, science says something about purpose. Clearly, this commits…
• (A) Clarifying the ResolutionThe resolution that we have before us today is "Science Has Nothing to Say About Human Purposes and the Universe." By this, I mean to say that science through its methods of deducing facts about the world through means of hypothesis, observation,…

For

• My position: People Should be Allowed to Secede from Society and not be bothered for it. Unless there is evidence that someone is causing direct harm to another person, they should be allowed to stop paying taxes, go live in the mountains, homeschool their children, and not be…

For

• Wow. Once again, I took way too long. Also, I am on vacation in Arizona right now, so my access to my computer might be somewhat sporadic. So, don't expect immediate arguments. In our brains, we have a kluge that it builds upon itself instead of changing. As a result, we still…
• Wow. I'm REALLY sorry that took so long. It was completely my fault. Anyhow, I think my saving grace in this debate will be the fact that any time you are offered a reward for ding something, and then you don't do it, your punishment is that you do not get the reward. My other…

For

• Sorry I forfeited. (I did get intimidated by Con's argument) Here's something I thought of: What if a child experiences contradicting moments? Let's say Bill's father plays golf, and takes Bill to his golf games once Bill is 4 years old. After Bill's 7th birthday, the father…
• So if a child experiences something, that is automatically right for that individual? What if it goes against what they've been told before the experience? What if ethical values are set in position before the father gets angry? Ethical values, as you say, are what society…

For

• I would also like to say that I accept my opponents definition of moral. Now, onto the arguments. ". .. my opponent accepts the fact that selfishness is an aspect of morality. Furthermore, my opponent is aware of the fact that selfishness is negative to the progression of…
• I will now move onto refute his argument: Rebuttal: My opponent is claiming that morals derive from one universal truth, but this just simply does not seem to be true. My opponent states: ". .. rebellious nature is not an indicator of a subjective morality, rather, an indicator…

For

• 1. Imagining/creating the logically incoherent.P1: Galileo once said the Earth is spherical, even though most other people believed it to be flat at the time.C: Therefore, my original argument that we could make a squircle if need be remains valid.Richard Dawkins comes to mind…
• 1. Imagining/creating the logically incoherent.Much to the shock of the audience, I'm sure, I must wholeheartedly disagree with my opponent's reasoning here.He brings up the examples of airplanes and TVs in order to prove a point: that every invention was, at one time in…

For

• The subject of this discussion is the simulation hypothesis. The idea that we are all, in fact, living in a simulation (most likely a computer simulation) and that we are blissfully unaware of this.

For

• Thank you for your response."Can you design a test that will prove that you aren't just a dream of a sleeping butterfly?"This is a question that is based off of the debate of what exactly IS reality. This has nothing to do with it being either objective or subjective. Lets take…
• I would like to point out I was not intending to redefine any of the terms that you defined except Absolute. The definitions Con gave were all correct, I only felt that the use of Absolute could have been clarified, which I did. I apologize for this confusion and will refrain…

For

• ttttttttttea
• prose?

For

• We come across the old truth "pen is mightier than sword" in serious discussions. Since the pen is used to espress idesas and the sowrd is used to impose one's will by superior violence, the statement really means that ideas have more influence than violence. Since violence is…
• I think that the pen is mightier than the sword. For instance, India got freedom due to non-violence, not violence...

For

• In this debate, I explained why only morally non-absolute and consequentialist systems were viable. These arguments were largely unresponded to. Con provided arguments that either don't make sense or weren't well explained. My burden in this debate is only to respond to…
• My opponent posted a comment saying that he accidentally posted his reply to the wrong debate. In order to maintain fairness, I will skip this round as well.

For

• If there are any questions about the resolution, they should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance. The resolution, character limit, and number of rounds are non-negotiable. The rules I've listed below may be changed if a logical reason to do so is presented. ->…

For

• I believe that mostly people are born with good memory, with quickly understanding skills. For example, you know how children since borning faster can learn any language, remember evething etc. But it is not a talent! It is ability of everyody! Talent it is when one person do…
• Yes I see the definition of "talent". It is just definition that people can understand what does this word mean. Do you think that the person (who wrote this dictionary) before writing the definition of "talent" did he conduct the researches on human, determine it is natural or…

For

• I take his introduction remarks to be in jest, so I don't view that as a conduct violation. In this discussion, I will show why the modal ontological argument is not sound. My opponent must not only knock down my arguments, but present a case of his own for the soundness of the…
• P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in…

For

• it is impossible to be perfectly happy because we always have problems many kind ofproblems , relationship problem , social problem , money problem and else . we can't solve this problem at one time . when we solved this problem another problem will come soo we can't be…

For

• You're making the same mistake that many make - you are confusing the purpose of an individual to the purpose of a species; they are not the same. Of course you are right when you say that you create your own purpose. The difference is as follows; we have two worlds and for the…
• Dreams of the 'future' are not what they appear to be. Dr Donald Hoffman discovered that all life is unable to see accurately; this gives us purpose which feeds our intelligence. The one stumbling block with this is, if all life is in the same boat, then why hasn't all life…

For

• structured thinking: where thought is confined within rigid boundaries. those boundaries were never challenged. it is also called mechanical thinking. unstructured thinking: here those boundaries of thought are often challenged and new ways are invented. it is flexible thinking…

For

• I extend my arguments.
• ~~Definitions: Society: "The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." However in my argument I will be discussing the entirety of the world's societies as one homogeneous mixture, since I strongly believe that environmental damage is the number…

For

• Well, I feel that love may be, in a manner of speaking, soul deep, if soul means something which goes beyond scientific reasons for loving somebody. This is because love is a human concept. Concepts are causes by parts of out brain and were initially adapted for human survival,…
• When you love someone, is it more than most different hormones in your body telling you that you feel affection for this person or does it run deeper than biological explantions; is love soul deep? In addition to this, if you love someone, but you know that they are already…

For

• My argument is fairly simple; if a song is not being played by anyone anywhere in the world it has stopped existing. Some basic definitions: Music - "1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody,…

For

• In closing, Making a claim "Evil is logically impossible" can be supported with evidence which appeals to the soundness of logic, and how the premise 'evil does not exist' can be connected to the conclusion of "since a is true, evil does not exist". Our thoughts and feelings…
• I am glad you acknowledge that claims should have supportive evidence. I do not know if Charles Manson is a good example of a psychopath, however Cons' example is appropriate. Good and evil may be objective of the perception of the individual, however, the good of the many…

For

• As Con, you should have a stance and be able to refute my arguments, but as displayed, Con does not provide any of them. Con hasn't even taken the time to read my statements, he put the words in my mouth that I apparently said "Man changes everything in history." He goes on to…
• Point One: Through out man's history, man has affected every change and progression. Every historical event which has taken place was due to a man's decision. Every bullet fired, every word written, every speech spoken, and every bomb dropped was due to a man making a decision…

For

• I would like to start by thanking my opponent for his participation in this debate and I commend him for his challenging rebuttals.For my final rebuttal I will address each topic under a slightly different heading so as to accommodate all of Creationtruth's points.Definition of…
• I would like to start by thanking my opponent for his thoughtful and provocative rebuttal. I will address each point under a separate heading. Objective Morality It appears that – and I accept the blame entirely – there has been some unnecessary confusion over the definition of…

For

• Thank you for your post. 1. By definition that you gave for matter, quantum mechanics would go against two points of it. A wave isn't a solid, liquid, or has, and it doesn't take up space. So, by definition, that would make what we perceive as matter, something else. 2. It is…
• Thank you for your post. 1. You state that because you can observe it with the attributes of matter, it must be matter. This is not always true as observing is misleading. Such as quantum mechanics, which state that the act of observing something changes what it is. Subatomic…

For

• The Root of faith cannot be faith itself and the purpose of this debate is to have someone either give me an incontrovertible reason to have faith in one faith over another faith or accept that their argument is circular and they have no real reason to choose one religion over…
• It was my original intention to clarify the parameters and objectives of the debate in my opening argument but since that was already done in the comments I am simply going to reiterate what was said there and continue with my opening statement. "The goal of my opponent would…

For

• "ask yourself, "can these statements both be true?" 1. Bob had children 2. Bob never had children" But that's the beauty of the Multi-verse theory! In some reality both of these statements are true allowing for all versions of reality to simultaneously exist. It's not as though…
• In my scenario this time traveler did kill his own grandfather. He went back in time, killed his own grandfather, and as a result created a split in the space time continuum creating a new reality in the future. He did kill his own grandfather, but in doing so he moved himself…

For

• Omnipotent God- 1. Would have the power to prevent all evils. 1a. Evil exists.1b. Omnipotent God can not exist. 2. Would have the power to eliminate existing evils. 1a. Evil currently exists. 1b. Omnipotent God can not exist. Omniscient God- 1. Would know when, how, why, where…
• My resolution: The existence of evil refutes the possibility of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions- Evil- morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.Omniscient- having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or…

For

• i'm not sure why con continues to argue about how we've conformed the earth to ourselves, instead of us conforming to the earth. we're not talking about the earth any more, space expansion. we could devise a way to expand, and create a better breed of human, that isn't…
• con doesn't explain why we would necessarily be gone. if we expanded into space, humans could still be one earth, and humans could be on several other planets, while advanced hominids diverge further out in time and space. this doesn't require past species to die out, as with…

For

• Before I begin, I would like to provide a brief roadmap. I will begin by defending my own case, then I will turn to my opponent's contentions. My opponent says that since there is no action that is always deemed "right" or "wrong", the problem will arise of conflicting morals,…
• I affirm "Morality is overall a good thing." I accept my opponent's definitions of morality, morals, and bad. Morals are necessary to making good choices, because, according to our definition of "morals", understanding the difference between right and wrong helps people in the…

For

• My humblest apologies to the entire public. My opponent clearly does not have what it takes to debate and clearly cannot present himself and abide with the rules set my this website. I hereby rest my case, since I have no other option because I will surely win if I continue…
• My opponent stated that planning for the future is not a waste of time and that it can be a very important decision to make since. He claims that SQUIRRELS store food for later use and that early warning systems need to be put in place to deal with natural disasters. The point…

For

• Easy tiger.. this is not a personal attack on you or your opinion. However, you are correct. I do not view your opinion as good enough. I respect that it is yours, and you are entitled to it, but this is not a mutual sharing of opinions. We are debating. It is not a serious or…
• Very few people can be considered truly ignorant in the manner which you have discussed. You seem to be discribing emotional ignorance, or complete self-engrossment, which would be considered either narcissism or sociopathy. Although it does not pertain to the original debate,…

For

• Firstly, I'd like to explain the illusion of free-will; The act of deciding is to consider the importance, or power, of influences that make up our lives. These influences include; culture, moods, emotions, environment, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, experience, mental state,…
• Round 1: Introductory Communication and Definitions Round 2: Both sides give First Arguments. Round 3: Free Debate/Refutation/Criticism of Opposing Arguments Round 4: Further Debate/Refutation/Criticism Round 5: Conclusions/Summary of Oppositions Arguments Summary: In this…

For

• beliefs oppose.. you have defined retardation.. congrats
• thats denial

For

• You agreed that I supplemented and stated 'what the whole point of each example.' Who can state the whole point and supplement an example without making a point to get across? Making a point to get across is sufficient condition for stating the whole point and supplementing.…
• Refutation to paragraph 1: You had to understand the example before you require the explanation I already wrote. 3: I mentioned the point in the first phrase. We follow the option that secures happiness as I showed, in other words, we act for happiness. 4: (Still, once again,…

For

• REBUTTAL: First, one could very well argue that religious systems are the creation of a divine being, but one would be hard-pressed to explain why a deity created thousands of different, often conflicting, belief systems. If there is a deity, common sense would tell us that it…
• Responding to Con's contentions from the previous round, I have attempted to enumerate and restate them. As follows: I. Without moral guidance, humans are bound to commit immoral acts. I counter that it is in fact a testament to man's inherent goodness that moral guidance…

For

• The difference between the stick appearing bent and the illusions I mentioned, is that it"s much easier to account any mistaken judgement from the former as a conceptual mistake. Of course we shouldn"t believe that the stick is actually bent. We know that it"s merely an…
• Please disregard Con's forfeit. His case can be found in this document: https://docs.google.com...According to Con there are three basic axioms of Objectivism: existence exists, things which exist must exist as things, and there is consciousness to perceive existence. Con…

For

• I thank Con for their reply.1) UniformitarianismI think Con is downgrading what Uniformaitarianism says. Uniformaitarianism was defined as "In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have…
• I thank Con for their response. In the previous rounds I kept referring to Con as the Pro, hopefully this didn't confuse people too much. I Concede that all assumptions of science are "useful" I want to make this clear, because the debate is on whether science is built on…

For

• First of all, the grammar in my opponents last two posts has been painful to read. I quoted "unimaginable powerful" because it doesn't make any sense and because it was said more than once. This was re-quoted by the opposition and used as an argument! As if they did not realise…
• Sorry I took a while. And I thank my opponent for his arguments and I will now attempt to rebut them. 1: First of all I would like to quote my opponent."The cause of the universe must also be personal; for how else could a(n) impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As…

For

• I just finished reading a debate between you and Patriots 16-0. I am under the impression that you do not believe in a "right" or "wrong", ethics, or morality. If this is true, I'd like to challenge you, as I believe there is a definite right and wrong.

For

• At this juncture, I'll do several things alongside with one that may be controversial. I'll explain later on in the debate. ==================== Practical Moral Skepticism ==================== My criminal example was to highlight the value most ethical theories have about…
• My opponent has responded with a well thought response, and brings up some points about PMS that show I should have been more clear and detailed. However, this doesn't escape the pitfalls MBE has. ==================== Practical Moral Skepticism ==================== First, let…

For

• Extend
• Extend

For

• 1] philosophy studies anything that science does notphilosophy studies, beside nature, soul, god, spirits, magick etc. science simply deny the existance of these things. but many people have experienced these things. this is evidence of the bigger span of philosophy.2]First, we…
• con did not understand properly my points. hence i will tell those points once again.1] science interfares with its subject of observation and thus distort the reality very much. take any science and you will find that it interfares with its subject in some controlled…

For

• Well, Can you argue against consequentialist morality?
• I'm done.

For

• You have literally presented no argument except saying "Time just is." In Round 2, I gave you logical reasoning to why I think it cannot be infinite. You countered with the words "My rebuttal...is simple realism. Time just is!" Look buddy, there's no need to keep on repeating…
• It is tedious to explain the irrelevance of your four statements, however I guess I have no other choice at this point... Con statement number 1: "Time just is!" That is not an argument; that is a position that needs to be proven true or false. By saying the words, "Time just…