Philosophy Debate Topics — page 18

Against

• Thanks for the reply. My opponent puts forth axioms as self-evident building blocks of logic. I would first like to point out that my opponent's source for this claim says nothing to support the claim, listing axioms rarely, and not once calling axioms self-evident. In fact,…
• I accept my opponent's definitions. Here's to a good debate!

Against

• This was bull_shit
• whatever

Against

• Before I respond to my opponent's conclusion, I need to address the arguments that were untouched by pro. Pro did not contest my definitions, my establishment of who the burden of proof lies on, my rebuttal, or my constructive. As per debate rules, this implies consent to each…
• I will allow for my argument to stand for this round, since I do not wish to take advantage of this forfeiture. It seems distasteful to me personally, as I am oblivious as to its cause. Therefore, I will not bolster my own case. However, I do wish to debunk my opponent's…

Against

• Mi oponnet se equivoca aqu" cuando afirma que el poder de omniportance no puede desafiar la l"gica. Como he buscado la definici"n de omniportance y afirm" que es el poder de tener ultamate y poder ulimated y siendo Dios como. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Por ejemplo…
• Por la presente acepto este debate y estoy mirando adelante a un gran debate. ¡Que gane el mejor. Sólo una nota al margen que podría cometer algunos errores españoles.

Against

• 750 chr limit. Man, at birth is neither good nor bad. To be good as is requires an intrinsic notion of the term. That it is good because it is, it exists as good because it's existence is good. A thing, action is not good, or bad in and of itself. It is good, or bad in context,…
• Ah trickery readers, one can tell from my opponents argument what was intended. A synonym of pure is good. http://thesaurus.reference.com... "Man is by nature good. Men are depraved and perverted by society." The two are related concepts, your argument makes that clear. Such…

Against

• I agree with the definitions! lol Well, at what point does the emotional become the rational? If emotional and rational are on opposite ends of the spectrum, it could be possible to make a rational decision, void of emotion. If I eat a spinach salad(which I hate) because I know…
• You haven't seen the hundreds of articles with almost the same topic as your own debate? Wish it were something that wasn't almost 100% psychological consensus, then it could have actually been a debate. Sorry for wasting your time and mine. Cheers all.

Against

• your just a false prophet, i am the savior, shrek is god, shrek is life. i must avenge for my savior jesus crackers for i have sinned for accepting this debate. you should be crucified for your actions against humanity. i am the chosen twice, repent or be sent to disneyland.
• jesus is being held captive on the moon by the shapeshifting illuminazis we have to save him because he died for our sins.

Against

• Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the final round, as he conceded (via Private messaging) that he has lost the debate and that: "i dont wanna f*king debate u again. trying to be a gigantic smart*ss"
• No, they don't. Jesus is a religious prophet who may or may not exist. He definitely exists in the Bible or in the faith of individuals. THAT IS CHRISTIANITY. So like I said, you can not say that Deism is irrational based upon the premises of a different religion. According to…

Against

• Seeing as PRO never responded to my arguments, I win. 100 Character minimum has been reached.
• Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

Against

• On my opponents side note: It is customary to congratulate your opponent and to show respect to them. It has been obvious my opponent has no need for that. I have did no such thing as distorting my opponents case as he claims. I have relied on the specific words that he typed…
• My opponent says that my last round was transparent and that I misrepresented his position. I think he did make himself very clear in his opening round. He said, "Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the…

Against

• Hmm... well I don't think there is a way to refute this argument without trying to destroy the bedrock to some of the fundamental constructs of modern philosophy, such as modal fictionalism, which I believe is expertly employed here. I have to hand it to my opponent and Alvin…
• Hi Rational_Thinker9119,Great rebuttal, and a huge mistake on my part for getting those principles mixed up, I concede the symmetical sphere argument as it does not apply and Secret Identity argument does only apply to relational attributes.However, I am not ready to concede…

Against

• So because vain people happen to get far proves that life as a whole is a big game of vanity? Well. OBVIOUSLY those who succeed are in some way vain because that is what drove them to GET THERE and eventually have "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or…
• The only coherent argument was that of the MEinem. Eminem is skilled but to be friends with him does not match the definition of vanity being "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements." Also you failed to refute any other points. You did not at…

Against

• Well I think you are assuming that time travel will go in both directions. Maybe we will go backwards only and cannot go forwards. Also, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics notes that any time someone make a decision a new world is created, so enter just one…

Against

• Having more money means an exellent life. You will be taking care of yourself properly.Do you know why tata Mandela rechead 94 years. Its because of money. Money determines state of mind of a person
• Money talks

Against

• The majority of mainstream society defines what "bad words" are. Bad words are simply terms that are against the moral terminology of modern society. They represent the "vulgar" usage of the human language, whether it be English or other languages. While moral standards may…

Against

• I think the act of defining yourself and sticking to it is a rigid act. If stuck in a box, Outside influences will have little effect on subconscious dissolution of your rigidity. People have preference to what they hold because it gives them security. A person's possessions…

Against

• I unexpectedly found myself at another city than the one I reside in, for a week, and as a result of this, I was not able to post my previous round, and thus apologise to my opponent. However, I shall still make a quick post, outlining my criticisms to Pro's justifications of…
• I am somewhat bemused as to the reasons why my opponent has asked me to refute the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument, given that he has not attempted to justify them in the first place. Without any attempt to justify all the premises of the argument, Pro cannot…

Against

• Thank you for your compliment. I appreciate your succinct method of putting forth ideas. I, As you noticed, Enjoy meandering around the shrubbery. :) I agree, More taxes could help with mental health care which is already a great concern in my neck of the planet. Our mental…
• Very well -- Stricter laws are not capable of producing the utopia either. As laws become more strict, The people will feel stifled. Humans have a sense to create, Yet people also tend to crate laws that fit a moral code -- for example I live in a small town in America where…

Against

• From an unbiased point of view there is no such thing as significance OR INSIGNIFICANCE. Significance is that considered great enough to be noteworthy while insignificance is that considered too small to be noteworthy. Both of these, as you have said, are, "a myth, a social…
• That we are a single stage of a reaction does not make us less significant than the reaction its self. From an unbiased point of view there is no such thing as significance; nothing is significant, nothing is insignificant. All there is... is stages and reactions. The…

Against

• Extend arguments
• Now just to clear up a few misconceptions. As per debate rules, I need not justify the conclusion or ~A. Pro only needs to indirectly show that A relies on a random arbitrary suspension of the principle of sufficient reason which evidently leads to a lack of justification for…

Against

• Pro postulates only one argument, which I have rebutted twice. They present this evidence two times. Once in the form of a riddle and once in the form a chocolate brownie incident. They assert that: As events have a beginning and an end, therefore time must also have a…
• In my opinion, time and space are very simple to understand. Therefore in my opinion time and space actually require simple explanations. My opinion is what makes up my half of this debate. Does it not. It is amazing how many people are unable to grasp the simplicity of…

Against

• Per rules in round one, I waive.
• I maintain my arguments from round three, Also to be fair I will not add any more of an argument in this round as I do not wish to take advantage of my opponent"s loss of a round. I did want to clarify, Pro, in round one it say that in round 4 Con "waives." This means you want…

Against

• Still, this did not rule out the possibility of supernatural existence. It just showed it was not possible to prove definitely. You said it yourself. We have limits to our knowledge. We can not rule out anything as impossible. We can say on is more likely, but not impossible.
• Well, congratulations on proving it is not meaningful. However, you didn't prove it was impossible. Just we have no way to detect it. You did not affirm the resolution.

Against

• Imagining the Logically Incoherent 1) You state that we cant perceive past what is illogical. I think of a man named Galileo who was a pioneer in his own day. Everyone in that day said the Earth is flat, square, and incapable of being anything other than that. This madman…
• And a good day to you sir. I will challenge your arguments directly. 1. It is likely to create anything including the logically incoherent because everything was incoherent at one point. Now as humans, we do have the ability to create things, fantastical things, wonderous…

Against

• I apologize for my forfeit. As this is the final round and presenting new arguments would constitute abuse against my opponent, I will only summarize my base argument which I presented in R2 and which Con did not offer a meaningful counter to. Refuting a standard such as…
• (A)- History.Not only has Pro failed to show specifics corroborating his Galileo anecdote (and thus inhibited any chance of me actually responding to/refuting it) but he is attempting to extrapolate philosophical standards from mere historical instances which is untenable in…

Against

• Since my opponent has forfeited, I shall present my arguments, hoping the opponent comes back. Note that the BoP in this debate is shared, and that my BoP will be solely on proving the Hobbesian view of the state of nature. Four centuries ago, scholar Thomas Hobbes wrote a…
• I accept. GL and HF!

Against

• Pro does no even attempt to address his question-begging, and I would draw readers' attention to that. If his argument begs the question we have no reason to accept it. "How is social behavior rational?" It's unclear exactly what pro WOULD consider rational at this point.…
• I'd like to draw readers' attention to the fact that pro's entire argument begs the question. He says I equate social behavior with morality - that's exactly right. That's what morality IS. The definition pro provided actually works in my favor: what is right or wrong in human…

Against

• The grammatical way I used 'inherently' meant the respect was inherently deserved by the warningof it, not that it was inherent prior or independent of the earning.It must be earned before it is deserved? That's impossible. Once its earned, as in that very millisecond, it is…
• Pro added the word 'inherently'. This was neither in the resolution nor in the Round 1. This is not about inheritly deserving respect, this is simply about deserving it or earning which I explain cannot be done indepdendent of the other.Pro has yet to epxlain how one can be…

Against

• "I will not vote if you won't either ;)" Excellent, thankyou very much. I have found the hole in PRO's argument, and it's quite simple, voters. I will start by answering the questions my opponent has posed: "Claim: There is no truth. Counter: Is THAT a truth? " MY ANSWER:…
• Although there is nothing stopping you from doing so, Haiku, can I please ask in the interest of fairness that you don't vote for yourself in this debate, as I am unable to vote at all. I don't really mind if you do end up voting for yourself, but I'd like to keep it as fair as…

Against

• You have been trolled.
• Ever did a Mississippi Mudflap in a crappy 1-star hotel?

Against

• ===Summary and Conclusion===Morality and Meaning.Con's argument began by positing that when we speak of morality in everyday use, we really mean to refer to actions which inhibit or cause suffering on sentient beings. But as I pointed out, all this proves is that our thinking…
• Morality and Meaning.Con begins by mischaracterizing what the aim of an ethical theory (in the scope of this debate) is. The aim will always depend on what field of ethics one is regarding. For instance, normative ethics will apply to the ought factor of ethics, what one ought…

Against

• Unfortunately my opponent was not able to post a final round in time. Please extend my arguments. Thank you very much for the debate, Pro, and good luck.
• Thanks, Pro. Pro clarifies the point of his first argument: that anything can be used for good or bad. For instance a knife can be used to cut a slice of pie, or it could be used to cut someone's throat. While that's true, that is not an argument in favor of the resolution.…

Against

• I guess my opponent is busy. I am too (in fact I should be working right now...). I will skip this round as well and if my opponent has any further arguments we can pick up in the last round.
• I think we may be getting into a confusing mess of terms here. "Fear of punishment is sufficient to explain morality" is equivalent to "If you fear punishment, then you are moral.". However, it is not equivalent to "One is moral iff they are afraid of punishment.". The topic…

Against

• Well that's somewhat of an oversimplification of particles. Not every particle is made of the exact same quarks. In fact, They come in flavors so pretty much every particle has some massive difference from one another. Furthermore, You can't just say the building blocks are the…
• Thanks for the interesting topic. While I don't ponder the concept of "Ego" very often, I hold a belief that is relevant to this topic. I believe that all consciousness comes from particles. Therefore, I also believe that ego comes from particles. My argument will be a rebuttal…

Against

• My stance is that the cosmological argument is not sound; that the argument for a first cause, or uncaused cause, is contradictory. As the burden of proof lies upon Vulpes Inculta, I shall merely attempt to refute his argument until the third round.
• 1: If god is timeless, then god is outside of the realm of reality, as time, although losing all meaning with nothing to be compared to, still exists. Therefore, god is either infinitely old or began at some point.2: I'd rather have logic, reason and evidence.3: If there's a…

Against

• Round 1: You post your opening argument.Round 2-4: free argumentation/rebuttal zone.Round 5: Both can give the conclusive statements (I don't do this thing of equal rounds where you have to post 'no argument here as agreed')By accepting this debate, you accordingly admit to…
• I am not sure why the mention of power was raised because power is irrelevant to the debate. This is about whether it is better to be feared or loved, irregardless of power. Unless my opponent can substantiate the relevance of power to this debate resolution, I will choose to…

Against

• My opponent aptly points out the flaw in his case with the qualifier on his final paragraph:"If you believe, even faintly, in the principles which affirm that. .. "What if I don't believe in those principles? There is no objective reason for me to place absolute moral value on…
• Pro has the BoP, so he will present his case in Round 1 and waive Round 4. Anarcho-capitalism -- the absence of an entity with a monopoly of force over a given geographic region. Ready? Set? Go!

Against

• I'll start this off with a couple of quotes. "an omnipotent being is bound by logic - it can only do things which are possible to do. Such examples as the square circle, or round triangle cannot be done, because they cannot exist. A square has one set of characteristics, and a…
• I'll use a few situations that the only conclusion for it is that omnipotency is impossible. Situation 1: Can an omnipotent being create a computer that he cannot defeat in a game of chess? Yes he can, he is omnipotent. At the same time as that, he cannot because if he were…

Against

• "Philosophy will be defined as reasoning about the nature of reality in the broadest sense possible. Philosophy entails the philosophy of physics, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of philosophy, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of…
• Okay, Philosophy does teach people useful skills. If you can argue random, abstract crap convincingly, you probably have the communication skills needed to succeed in any non-specialized field. While I still think the actual subject is useless, you are technically in the right.…

Against

• Framing In the words of philosopher David Hume, "the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence," and by extension, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As the affirmative, my opponent TototheToro is obligated to prove his claims.…
• The resolution is everything is mathematics, and when voting, you must hold him to the proposition that everything is math, from tacos to sociology to Jesus Christ, and everything in between. If I, as the negation, can prove even 1 mesley thing that isn't mathematical, then…

Against

• Notwithstanding his valiant attempts to discredit my position, however, he has fallen well short in meeting his own burden of proof to show that patriotism is a moral virtue. In this final round, I will first address some of the smaller disagreements between myself and my…
• Before I engage my opponent's argument, I would like to emphasize that the burden of proof in this debate is equally shared. It is not enough for the "Pro" of this debate's resolution to merely rebut my "Con" arguments as non-preclusive; he must make an affirmative case of his…

Against

• Although Pro has disproved my statement from round 2, he has not shown that it is unknowable/uncertain. Thus, we know with absolution that the following statement is false: "an object either is a rock or is not a rock." An equivalent statement known to be true is as follows: it…
• I concede that Pro has successfully rebutted my statement from round 1. However, using Pro's logic, the following statement is true: an object either is a rock or is not a rock (mathematically, 1=1 or 1/=1). (Another way of expressing this is that either a rock can truly be a…

Against

• Let me remind you of a few comments you made in round one, and I will tell you how no matter what your definition is you are wrong. Furthermore, you will never act on your arguments. I would like to see you disregard the commands of a police officer who is showing you respect…
• The problem with this argument is how you define arbitrary respect. Since you did not define it in your own terms I will use this definition: arbitrary- subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion respect- deference to a…

Against

• Hello, Sure death is natural and must happen but human emotions are vulnerable and easily triggered for a reason. The base fear of every human is death. That fear has given humans survival skills that have helped us become more intelligent and progress for thousands of years.…

Against

• Okay
• Okay

Against

• I shall negate the resolution, "There is no present. " Hence, I shall attempt to prove that there is a present. =============== Burden of Proof: My opponent holds the Burden of Proof to affirm that there is no present. If I am able to prove otherwise, the resolution shall be…
• However, my opponent ignored my contentions and did not even attempt to counter them. "In this debate the pro (me) is not saying that there is no such concept as the present. I am not making the claim that there "is no present". " The resolution of this debate is, "There is no…

Against

• Sense is logic, and you have neither.
• I can't seem to get through to you. As I stated before , your brain has a fortress of resilient down syndrome protecting it from any logic. I'm afraid to try to convince you again... Lord knows what kind of shjt you'll post in Round 5. But I have to. This is a debate (well,…

Against

• Thank you for the interesting points. It should make for interesting discussion.CulpabilityDirect: As far as direct causation goes, because you chose to argue for God instead of Ra, Vishnu or even simply a generic, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent figure, you are bound by…
• Thank you for the insightful response!Properly Understanding CausationI wish to first address what I believe is a problem with your argument: you seem to have erroneously narrowed the scope of causality to a degree that humans do not generally accept legally, logically or…

Against

• The Native American people were wronged in many ways over hundreds of years. Their homes have been stripped from them from under their feet, their culture has crumbled under their noses, the blood of the millions of their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, the people…
• I am arguing against Ayn Rand's concept of rights and what she thought about the Native Americans.I believe that her thoughts about Native Americans is based on ignorance. I also believe that her entire philosophy and thoughts about Native Americans completely contradict each…

Against

• Pro hasn't offered any other arguments, so I cannot refute. "aliens are true?" There is little hard evidence to support, nor deny the existence of Extra Terrestrials.
• I will Refute what Pro has to say. "unknown=false" That is Incorrect. Unknown(1) is separate from False.(2) "reality is unbelieved, imagination is unknown" Pro makes Non-Sensical statements, I would ask he refrain from using Marijuana while at the Keyboard.…