Philosophy Debate Topics — page 17

For

• R1: Acceptance R2: Argumentation R3: Rebuttal/Argumentation R4: Closing The goal of anyone who accepts is to attempt to generate strong reason to believe that morals are objective.
• 1. Opponent's source: "Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever…

For

• I. Defenses:1. Uncaused First CauseA. Clarification."my opponent bases their argument on the unsupported assertion that the mind 'created' all things, places, etc in a way that solipsism does not argue. The mind did not actually create anything. On solipsism, the sense…
• If you are a solipsist, this will be an easy win for your as you are debating yourself. For now, we will assume that I exist. Clarification: 1. As was explicitly stated in the debate title, the resolution is on the reasonability of "being a solipsist," not solipsism itself. And…

For

• THE PRIMACY OF WANT I believe the first question that anyone should ask themselves when doing anything is to ask themselves — "Why bother?"� There is a clear distinction between having a "reason to" do something, and understanding the "reason why" something is done. The…
• Okay, then! More definitions, both for my opponent and for readers possibly not familiar with ethical philosophy. Propositions are the meanings behind statements that can either be true or false. By arguing that ethical claims are propositions, I'm arguing that one can be wrong…

For

• i'm just playing to see who'd argue against it. i don't expect anyone would believe it was me. if you didn't want to argue against what was said, then you shouldn't have taken the debate. if you don't know who sarte is, then you shouldn't have taken the debate. most philsophers…
• The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, sense of taking…

For

• Full resolution:"In a situation where both virutes are incompatible: it is better for a leader to be more feared than loved."Rules-BoP is shared, as Pro must prove it is better to be feared as a leader, Con must equally prove that it is better to be loved as a leader.-If you're…
• R1: Loyalty In Contention 1 Con argues that leaders who are loved are "less likely of being overthrown or assassinated", whilst citing the fall of the French Monarchy and the overthrow of Benito Mussolini. The problems with this argument are as followed: -The collapse of the…

For

• Mankind was given the gift to think for themselves, through this gift we have advanced far beyond any other creature's capable of. It is because of the ability to make decisions that mankind has prospered thus far. But I believe, in order for man to continue moving forward, he…
• Through this, I would like to express my opinion on why morality is an incompetent basis in making everyday decisions. First of; logic means reasoning conducted with strict principles of validity, therefore logic is unbiased. While morality may be ruled by right or wrong, not…

For

• more source then what
• without everything there is no source of everything

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

• 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

• Just because society constantly changes, doesn't mean that people still aren't conforming to another, separate standard. Yes, people ignored the Emancipation Proclamation, showing non-conformity for that change, but that doesn't mean they weren't conforming at all. They were…
• To refute my opponent's first argument, social standards only change because of society. The change can only take place if the people adopt it, so the people are conforming and agreeing to the change itself. For example, when the Emancipation Proclamation was placed, everyone…

For

• We live in a broken World! Yes we live in a broken world, where, there is neither love nor trust! We all know that in today's life, way of living is getting more modern and it separates us from our beloveds. We are near to families but we are so far from them! For example,…
• We live in a broken World! Yes we live in a broken world, where, there is not love not trust! Please open your argue so we go forward! Wishing u all the best!

For

• If you feel that everything is permissible, You are not increasing your tolerance--you are eliminating it. Likely, You still feel some things are BAD, And you are likely to be fairly intolerant of those things.
• Ha ha ha ha, No I did not anticipate this line of attack. Nevertheless, My argument and my thesis both survive the challenge. 1 === Definitions === I began the definitions section with normative behavior, Which included the "human" constraint on behaviors that you cite. Each…

For

• Rebuttal 1Its common sense that someone can believe something. People believe things all the time. At this moment you're believing that someone can't know that they exist. I believe that I'm wearing a green shirt right now. Some people believe in God. How is belief in one's…
• Someone can have knowledge of their existance because: 1: They could belive that they exist.2: If they belive anything they would have to exist just because they're thinking at all. This would make their belief that they exist true.3. Their belief would be justified from the…

For

• I do not believe in total no absolute truth, only in certain matters. For example, the statement "bread is made only out of wheat' has no absolute truth to it
• That depends on what truth. For example, it is absolutely true that I'm alive. So explain what you mean by "absolute truth

For

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

For

• Extend.
• Extend.

For

• I appear to be arguing that Free Will exists if the right perspective of it is found. That a person need not let language button-hole himself into misery if they do not will it. 'If, Is a word you might object to I suppose, But this does not bother me. Do people not consider…
• A man is able to will something because he has knowledge of something. A complete lack of Free Will can no more exist in a human than complete Free Will. Same as the terms of Good and Evil requiring each other, And a human to possess relevance. A lack of free will can exist,…

For

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

For

• I would argue that the basis of logic is a priori truths or axioms. We cannot have conclusions that do not arrive from the idea that a=a (a here representing an idea, or Aristotle's "essence"). For example, an unmarried bachelor cannot possibly exist, because being a bachelor…
• Logic relies on assumption that nothing can be illogical. This is because, in a hypothetical situation where logic does not apply, nothing can be said with certainty. If we accept this contention as true, then within an illogical world, a logical one could exist. If we accept…

For

• I very much enjoyed your definitions of worldview and belief. In fact, to save time I will just reference those definitions to show we have the same ideas regarding those key words. Cons 1st contention: skepticismI'm surprised that you referenced Pyrrhonism and Academic…
• I will start with the argument written out. 1. If I exist, then I have a belief in a worldview. 2. I exist. 3. Therefore; I have a belief in a worldview. This argument applies to all humans naturally due to us having the ability to have abstract thinking. So I have heard many…

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…

For

• No one should build a home for free. Correct! But, the fact that something that is required for living is a charge that we have to pay. Most people that are a part of the modern industrialized world need a house, electricity, water, and heat to live off of. All of those…
• What I am saying is this is not an example of advanced beings. Advanced beings wouldn't leave their own out to dry. The fact that not a single movement in this country is done without exchanging hands is sick. We are the only beings charged with having to live. Two jobs and I'm…

For

• --- "A concept if unknown is not a concept - being that an internally recognized definition is a requirement of its discussion. Collective unconscious for Jung was not the soul - in his spiritual argument it was a component discrete from the individual and part of the universe…
• Now, I will attempt to refute his argument. 1. My opponent begins to refute my idea of 'past life times; which I tried to convey as the idea of 'Reincarnation', in terms of a person's 'soul' is 'transferred' to another body. My opponent, as he states "For the purposes of this…

For

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

For

• Vain, ego is not vanity as it is what men shave in and some women put on there outside mask, love is a need and lust are wants. Narcissist and self loathing have nothing to offer another but sorrow. What is a friend I ask myself, well a friend isn't much by them self because…
• Another adaptation of a loveless life is a pointless life. I love myself, I think am grand, when I'm all alone I hold my hand. I think one day I'll marry me and try and raise a family. First verse. I love myself, I think am grand, when I'm all alone I hold my hand. Second…

For

• I have to admit I had never thought from your angle before and I hope I don't end up contradicting myself. I think I can persuade the readers to my view but if not then perhaps you will have persuaded me. So lets get started. SUMMARRY OF CON'S ARGUMENT: He's stating that…
• This is a philosophical debate. My argument is that if nobody in the world was ever sad, angry, annoyed, etc. there could be no happiness. As far as I see it you can't have positive without these negative emotions. If you were permamently happy then you wouldn't be happy. You…

For

• Good morning, afternoon, evening or mid-night. Now I accept my opponent's points and let me start off by saying, no of course time would not stop all of a sudden and no, this is not the topic. The topic is that time which is always and always will be existent is the ultimate…
• Good Morning, Afternoon or any other greeting depending on time. My name is WARHEADMITCH and I shall be vouching for the pro side. That time is the ultimate evil and that it always will be the ultimate evil until the end of the universe and existence overall, unless you have…

For

• "We are talking about the typical form of arts, which is painting or sculpturing." If you had a problem with the definitions I provided you should have said so in the second round of the debate, before I provided my argument. "Yes but geometry, symmetry, construction etc are…
• Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. The various branches of creative activity, such as painting,…

For

• if i ask you how are you going to say you already won the debate?
• you have proved you believe you have proved something

For

• "My opponent is simply ignoring the other side of the tale. If he aligns himself like this, how is he going to see the proof of duality? It's like Pro is postulating that there are only numbers greater than zero, and that negative numbers don't exist."Indeed, I am not "ignoring…
• Concurrences:1) "1) In the words of Pro, "Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat."The argument is fallacious."We define a fallacy as a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument.Failing to provide…

For

• First I will defend my contentions, then address my opponents. 1A)Con has many flaws in his attack on this contention. I'll address them quickly. Con states, "Variation occurred for several reasons, primarily because of adaptive radiation, where organisms isolated in different…
• Now that we have ironed out the details of the debate, let's jump in. Thank you Con for accepting this debate and remaining patient while we settle the confusion. The dissenting view of evolution is much more productive for the scientific community, and here is why. I will…

For

• I obviously would have liked to debate this topic more with my opponent but he has forfeited the last three rounds. My opponent brought a few arguments in negation of the resolution and I responded to and refuted these arguments. My opponent did not back his contentions up and…
• Extend my arguments.

For

• Thank you for posting, I will start by mentioning definitions, then clearing misconceptions, lastly concluding what myself and my opponent tries to say.A) Definitons1) In a formal debate, the for side have responsiblitity to list the definitions (see round 1) the con side…
• Thank you for accepting, PowerPikachu21.Defining today's motion:1) If i could prove that there is an element of selfishness (no matter how small) in the acts of altruism, today's motion shall stand.2) In other words, if my opponent failed to exclude all elements of selfishness,…

For

• CON claimed I gave examples of complexity and fragility and then "jumped" directly to a conclusion. Yes I did give examples of complexity and fragility, but I do not feel I jumped directly to the conclusion that there is therefore a designer. I also gave reasons that design is…
• I accept that I bear the burden of proof since I made the first positive claim. I also accept the definition of Natural Law. Physicist Steven Barr defines fine-tuning as a "neutral description that does not prejudice the issue toward a theistic or non theistic interpretation;…

For

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

For

• I am saying that it COULD be false (in the scope of universal truth) because the concept has been defined and there are massive disputes on the nature of "reality" on a quantum level, which is impossible to discover with naked senses. I am saying no one can define reality. That…
• I think I see the confusion. I am merely stating that the human view/concept of reality is limited, therefore fallible. I am not saying I know the answer, nor am I defining reality, rather I advocate the ponderance of the possibilities of the concept of reality.

For

• Firstly, I would ask that we consider that the distinction between our mental state and the physical state of our brain is existent only in semantics and debates regarding Cartesian (mind-body) dualism. That I reject Descartes' view of the mind/body separation is apparently…
• With regards to his first comments, everything he says on contradiction is true. Hence, I would like to amend my presentation slightly: S1. All actions that are not free are not subject to moral responsibility . S2. All human actions are not free. S3. All human actions are not…

For

• There will never be a society that could be considered totally successful, human nature simply won't allow us to live peacefully alongside each other. If someone could design human society from scratch, would you keep morality and ethics and social constructs? wouldn't it be…

For

• As I stated, my opponent did not follow the rules. I started another debate elsewhere, which you can check out. I hope you can give me the conduct point, and call it a day. I was looking forward to a great debate, but it seems that wont be…
• This troll has ruined a debate I was looking forward to. I ask the audience to cast a vote for me, regardless of what my opponent says next round. The debate clearly asked him/her to go first.

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

• Pro has not claimed " Something comes out of Nothing". Pro uses the word "CAN". CAN as in possibility. I have clearly presented my argument for the possibility. No the pro has not speculated. Pro's position is all the possibilities are open when we cannot observe, Test and run…
• The Con is confounding "something" I. E. The whole Universe with merely matter and "nothing" with empty space. Without a doubt, The Big Bang Theory demonstrates that not only matter but also Space and Time had a beginning. We therefore are not talking about merely matter being…

For

• It seem that Con misunderstood the point that was made. If human actions are governed solely physics then they must be either deterministic or random, depending upon differing views in classical and modern physics. HOWEVER! Free will as Con kindly defined is "the power of…
• The processes possible in a physical world can be classified into two categories random and deterministic, it follows therefore that in order for free will to exist there must be a non physical construct behind the scenes to enable free choice i.e. a soul.

For

• This debate is designed to determine whether or not there is such thing as a need outside of the context of a want. I will be arguing that such a thing is not logically possible. 1. First round-acceptance 2. Second round-opening arguments 3. Third round- closing arguments
• If there are those who have no desire for those things, then they certainly do not need them. For example, if I have no desire to live, how could I need to live? Even if there were a scientist who had the cure for cancer, but was about to die before sharing it, that does not…

For

• You got it all wrong, get a glossary and erudite yourself betwixt the definition of the word "knowledge". Technology is made via the help of knowledge, is it not? - Knowledge and greed. If the bible places blinders on people, then all books do the same.
• The Bible says it, the more you know, the more corrupt you get. Technology is corruption and demise. Chernobyl anyone? It's good to not know all the details, ALWAYS.

For

• First I will Combat Con's Statement "Since we can determine truths without the need of a perspective, Pro's claim inevitably fails." We can not determine truths without need of perspective, but rather use perspective to determine truth. Truth Is continually being sought out by…
• After reading through debates on god and morality, I questioned the ultimate usefulness of such arguments in general as most people partaking in them leave with a stronger conviction than when they started. Debate has its purpose in coming to a consensus, or agreement. Paradox,…

For

• I understood the general idea of what you were trying to get across, but there were at least three or four topics being discussed as one. I wanted to get a common understanding of terminology out of the way, which in itself took care of the alleged link between Darwinian…
• 1)Fair enough. 2)It might not matter greatly, but it does matter. Geocentrism was an unfalsifiable hypothesis; the descent of beings from a common ancestor is a scientific fact. 3)Agreed. 4)What terms did I redefine? You gave no definitions at all. The question of abiogenesis…

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.

For

• Dammit your a pro whyyyyy. Alright, The first thing I noticed what that you haven't refuted all my points, And I ask why. I said in my previous essay how we could make a nation with only physical might and no laws. You attempt to refute this by saying:"Without laws,…
• . . . . . . Read the title. "Physical force is mightier than words. "Hm, I don't know what that means. To be honest, It was a fault on my part. I'll learn from it. I'll be happy to end this debate in a tie now, I guess.

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

• My argument against physicalism is simple -- it is impossible for a purely physical description of reality to account for our conscious experience; the view that only matter & energy exist is incompatible with the fact that you are consciously reading and understanding this…
• Thanks to Sargon for proposing this topic. Standard DDO rules apply -- first round for acceptance, no new arguments or rebuttals in the final round, no semantics, no trolling, etc, etc etc. I have the burden of proof in this debate to show that Physicalism is improbable. The…