Philosophy Debate Topics — page 19

For

• Whether or not they believe their life is pointless is moot. The debate topic is that in the large scale, the average person is forgotten in the lesser part of a century. Therefore in the end, the average Joes life is pointless. I think my life has a point but the best source…
• I will first like to apologize for not posting. I lost track of time. "[E]veryone has the ability to make it big no matter where they are from." This is technically true however this is an extreamely rare case. But even if this happens, those people do not end up in the…

For

• I believe that it is better to explore the universe and organize space travels rather than take care of people living in the third world. Acceptance first.
• Now let"s start with the rebuttals as I have not something else to add: "Taking care of people living in the third world is more important explore the universe and organise space travels because you're essentially letting people die due to issues we helped create through…

For

• In the rules for the debate, Con stated that definitional games were not allowed. I stated I would hold him to that, and it appears I will need to do so. First, Con argues genetics. It is important to note that he does not refute that according to the dictionary, the definition…
• Con has asked that we 'not get anal over definitions'. I agree and plan to hold Con to that, using only common dictionary provided definitions for the terms without trying to redefine terms or split hairs with definitions from odd sources. The classic formulation clearly…

For

• Closing RemarksI stated from the being that a person when given the choose between helping him self and helping others he would choose him self every time if he was truly untaught by are society. I showed that Man when given unchecked power abused it. I also showed that when…
• "First of all, I would like to point out that morality does not exist as a physical or natural law. One does not get smitten by god/nature/karma for doing something "evil." Morality by nature is something humans make up and decide, and ethical theories are what we have in…

For

• ,,This is a baseless assertion by my opponent and does not have any weightage. He doesnot show why and how it is a matter of choice he simply asserts so. I should like to inform the voters that this is actually contradictory to his case because he goes on to rest the case of…
• Note that in this debate, I am not defending the position of any of the holy books. Far from it, I am doing the exact opposite. My argument 'Evil' is not a matter of choice, whether you like it or not. Nobody simply 'chooses' to be evil. This brings me back to another debate on…

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

• IntroductionI'm very glad that my opponent has provided a response to my arguments! Unfortunately, many of her rebuttals simply misunderstand the arguments presented. Thus, they provide no refutation of the arguments. Furthermore, the rebuttals which do actually refer to the…
• I would like to ask any readers to consider the arguments I shall present with an open mind; this debate is not that the mind is non-physical, beyond a doubt. Rather, I shall argue that it is more probable, or more plausible, that the mind is at least somewhat non-physical. Con…

For

• I accept this challenge to debate. However, as the instigator hasn't provided any definition of how stupid the stupid person in question here is, i may find that I agree with him after he defines his terms.
• I apologize for missing the due date for the last round. Life is pretty busy this time of year. First off, Con argues that the example of the autistic is merely distracting. Its purpose was to demonstrate a larger point: that simply referring to someone as "stupid" as Con does…

For

• Bummer
• Extend my argument...................

For

• The contender has forfeited. There is nothing much else to say except for al-Hamdulilaah, praise be to God.
• 1. Knowledge of GodActually there are no contradictions at all, Con is simply misunderstanding, a lot. He seems to neglect that everything has a context to it. God honors the righteous and dishonors the unrighteous, what's so hard to understand about that? God gives us life and…

For

• Thanks for being a good sport burningpuppie101! (1) Firstly Descartes does come to a conclusion- which is that his sensory experience can be doubted- therefore he must accept one of several disturbing consequences (that he is dreaming, he is being deceived, or that he is a…
• The topic is the Validity of skepticism- and I am PRO (for) Validity and you are CON (against) Skepticism's validity. I do believe your mistake is truly an accident, thus for this round of argument I have decided to not further my portion of the debate. If you CON wish to argue…

For

• I completely agree with my opponent's assessment that neither of us can give a definitive answer; definitive proof simply doesn't exist in science. And it is also true that having a debate on the subject isn't the best way to reach the truth. All of what my opponent has said…
• Thanks for the speedy response, Con.Con's rebuttal against my case for determinism is essentially an appeal to the unreliability of human cognition and perception, claiming that our natural psychological tendency to seek out patterns in things can result in us believing in…

For

• P1: My opponent here claims that we can't know whether something can come from nothing or not. However, this isn't the case. When I say something coming from nothing, I mean something randomly popping into being for no reason. If this were possible, we would see this happening…
• Hello, it's good to be back! I apologize for fore fitting some of my debates. Here is the kalam cosmological argument: -Whatever begins to exist has a cause -The universe began to exist -Therefore, the universe had a cause Defense of P1: It's silly to think things can just pop…

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

• I'd like to apologize for being unable to post my argument, I did not have access to a computer with the capabilities to post my argument. Anyways, I was mistaken, being that life is a fallacy, rather than a paradox, so my apologies there as well. Anyways, back to the argument:…
• I figured I'd follow the curve of the most debates and state that round one is the introduction, ideals, etc. I stand on the basis that the life cycle of a human is a predetermined course of events, and since it is a constant cycle, a paradox. I'm interested in seeing what the…

For

• Thanks for accepting SillyDebater, I think you got us off on a path where we might find truth after this is all said and done. I think you have done a great job in framing your comments and staying on point, but I ask you to think critically about where I find the holes in your…
• Christianity's biggest weak point for me lays in the fact that it assumes we can make a choice to believe in and have faith in God. But I contend that belief is not a choice: it is a result. We can only take action to reach such a result, but that result is not guaranteed.…

For

• This debate could've been interesting, but CON never provided any arguments past round 1. I do appreciate the topic though. It's one to think about.Conduct should go to me, in light of the forfeits, and arguments should go to me due to the arguments that I have presented in…
• Previous Arguments Argument 1. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one's best interest to be a healthy skeptic. 3. Therefore, one should be a healthy skeptic. Argument 2. 1. One should do that which is in their best interest. 2. It is in one's…

For

• Note, readers, that I did not say the first code, as my opponent asserts, but merely implied it as such and as the most predominant. Any devotee of history should realize that the Cuneiform Law predates many others, and, as my opponent asserts, there were other legal systems -…
• Right, I don't wish to engage in semantics, as that would valuable space. You are proceeding in a manner that I had anticipated. : ) Firstly, Divine Law would be the basis for the natural law of today. As far as history can predict, the Mosaic Code was one of the very first…

For

• Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his previous round. For what reasons he did this, I don't know. However, I do want the audience to realize that even if JCMT forfeited one round, you shouldn't simply vote him down for this (though it becomes more likely to). At least…
• I thank JCMT for his response - he's definitely a challenging opponent. Since we both agree that the focal point of this debate is about perception qua perception, which is just the fancy Latin way of saying perception in general, there is no further discussion needed about…

For

• Just because we "agree" on something doesn't make it reality. We believed wholeheartedly in geocentrism and that turned out to clearly not be reality. I'd ask con to please use real arguments and reasons rather than relatively meaningless statements like "if we agree that…
• Con's argument holds no water. The official logical progression would look as follows:: (a) The only thing one has direct access to is the contents of one's own mind (one's mental states). What one knows most certainly are one's mental states - one's thoughts, experiences,…

For

• Philosophy is a talking shop of Ideas. Its an Interesting journey for the self obsessed but rarely achieves much. Study something else.
• If you feel the need to explain why we do things then study plumbing or carpentry . Philosophy is navel gazing and for wankers.

For

• Dealing with all of my opponent's appeals to uncertainty: 1) This is another logical fallacy 2) This is not an argument, nor does it rebut mine 3) Even if you were right, it is only helping my case, because under a strict interpretation of the topic, if the point is moot it…
• I'm going to start with some basic definitions. The universe is everything. Energy is everything that is not matter, and includes forces. Matter is something that occupies a finite amount of space, and includes dark matter. Life is any collection of matter on planet Earth that…

For

• 1. Human beings exist because they manifest themselves to other human beings: Among other attributes, human beings have mass and appearance that can be measured and observed, both by subjective, physiological means and by objective, scientific standards: Human beings exist.…
• I believe that humanity, regardless of origins, should be considered a failed experiment. 1. Religious zealotry has created a mass disconnect between humanity 2. War has always been an inevitable reality of life 3. Empathy and complacency are at disgustingly low levels 4.…

For

• I would Just like to mention before I go into my argument that it has been a good debate which I have thoroughly enjoyed partaking in. Now for my argument, There is a difference between being elite and being paramount in keeping society functioning. The elite should not…
• Regardless of whether talent can be found in individuals it is the fact that it is exploited by people in corporations who in turn gain the most profit or end result, for example, the people that designed the script for superman were pretty much broke regardless of the fact…

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

• General criticismsContradictaries: In his response, Con, at various times, holds 3 distinct positions:(i) God cannot act to prevent gratuitous evil (denial of P1)(ii) God acts to prevent gratuitous evil and we know His means (theodicy)(iii) God's actions are completely beyond…
• IntroductionIn this round, I'll be defending the argument I laid out in R1. Defending P1Put simply, P1 states that if God exists, gratuitous evils do not.This seems necessarily true. God, as defined, would have both the means and the motive to prevent this kind of evil, if He…

For

• A couple weeks ago, the radio in my car stopped working. Now, since I'm a guy, you can imagine that this was pretty much the end of the world for me because I really value being able to listen to music. The next day I took my car to a mechanic and he was able to fix the radio.…

For

• The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been greatly used to 'prove' the existence of a supreme being which 'brought' the universe into being. The argument goes as follow 1. Everything begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the…
• Thank you for such an interesting rebuttal!1. Con believed that I implied that the universe could begin to exist without a cause and that I need to back up my claim.NO! I didn't claim anything about the origin of the universe. I claimed that the method in which you used to…

For

• As pro I will argue that naturalism is backed up by much more evidence then supernaturalism. Con would either argue that supernaturalism is superior, or that neither conclusion is backed up by sufficient evidence. Definitions: Naturalism: The system of thought holding that all…

For

• In this debate I will prove that life is like an arcade-style game. 1. The goal is to score as many points as possible and/or to reach the highest level. This has different meaning from person to person, but the idea is the same--the more points, the better. Depending on the…

For

• Yes finally, some one that's not rude, the last person I had a debate with was really rude. Okay, well I kind of think this will not really be an argument, or a fight to say he's right. Because what I meant by my first post is that only God can make us happy, but he may use…
• Riches will not please a person, it will just make them feel bad about themselves. Only God can make us happy.

For

• Let me begin by apologizing to the readers. I often get carried away and forget that I am debating for other people's benefit, and they might not have any expertise in the areas being debated. With that being said, I will try to fully explain any technical philosophical or…
• Con: Meaningful by what standards? What Hume is trying to argue is that empirically verifiable claims are meaningful in the search for TRUTH, and that without this ability we are almost always proven wrong. Meaningful by the standards of everyday language users, including…

For

• Interesting round.... " I would like to ask for more than just a defensive argument next time." Why? You only gave me one argument to rebut. That being the dad or mom rescuing the children. I also believe I provided substantial evidence against you. "I understand that you can…
• Extend arguments.

For

• would like to see someone argue with me that it isnt, thought it might be intresting!=p

For

• The Principle Of ParsimonyMy opponent says I have misused Occam's Razor, but this is self-evidently false. I defined Occam's Razor in the first round, and showed how Idealism adheres to it more than Realism. Con says it is not just about the simplest explanation, but the best…
• The Principle Of Parsimony If one can explain X without adding something unnecessary to the equation, then this is to be preferred rationally. This is also known as Occam's Razor: "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in…

For

• I was hoping for more of a rebuttal from Con, but I guess I will take a 0 to 0 tie against a user with a higher Elo than myself as a personal victory. Good debate.
• My opponent is correct that the resolution is not "Words have no intrinsic meaning". Biased Voting is Not Allowed Here on debate.org, there are rules that are to be followed when voting on a debate. One of these rules includes the topic of "Voting based on personal bias" [1].…

For

• IN A DEBATE, BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON BOTH PRO AND CON. PRO must prove he is right. CON Must PROVE something else is right. Being Con in a debate means you must provide a contrary belief and defend it. Con does not just have the right to sit back and deny your evidence. He…
• Extend all my arguments: my opponent's account has either been deleted or removed, therefore they stand true in the round, as a result I win. I am a really inefficient space filler.

For

• Regarding the concession of normative contingency: the only differentiation between morality and ethics on Con's part is to say that the former is a personal phenomenon, the latter a cultural phenomenon. It's really the same concept, just on different scales. In other words,…
• Con's Counterarguments Normative Contingency First of all: what I argued "everyone acknowledges" is that "moral facts" are all contingent all the moral frameworks within which such propositions are contextualized. I was simply extending the contingency analysis to the…

For

• Alright, MouthWash. Let's jam. http://www.youtube.com...Before we begin, I want to lay out the position I will be taking. This will give MW the opportunity to familiarize himself with my argument and jargon, and it will also permit him to particularize his arguments to the…
• http://www.youtube.com... Con's conceded; if you ever want to debate this again, let me know.

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

• Unfortunately, I've categorized myself wrongly and was supposed to be con for this debate. I'll forfeit, my bad.
• Ah, I actually meant that I will be arguing as pro for this debate, sorry for my trivial errors as this is my first time debating online. First of all, thank you Brian for accepting my debate. Moving on, if any of us were to go back in time to stop the invention of the atomic…

For

• Unfortunately, Immortal has forfeited round 2. I believe I have sufficiently refuted his arguments so extend my my counter-arguments and original argument. Thanks to anyone who reads this!
• Thanks to Immortal again. I will respond only to his relevant criticisms so I will be skipping some premises. Premise 1: Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time. The premise isn't just probably true - it is analytically true. Con's rebuttal fails…

For

• Rebutting My Opponent's Claims"God did create perfection. He did not create imperfection." - TalibCon has not backed up the above with anything. Thus, I am calling Con out on a bare-assertion fallacy. Regardless, if reality and its parts are perfect, then the beings inside the…
• Rebutting My Opponents Claims"This is where Pro completely misunderstands the idea of God and His creation. He seems to in his own way equate the creation with God, but this simply can't be. Both God and His creation are completely different and separate realities." - TalibA…

For

• Um... what?
• "I am forfeiting because I am not going to argue against my very own created theory. This is wack!!"I win.

For

• My opponent has dropped his argument regarding quantum randomness, so it is conceded that "matter and energy follow a certain set of regulations in their course. " My opponent's only remaining objection to my syllogism is: "Life processes such as pain cannot be answered by…
• Thanks to my opponent for waiting until Monday to post, for my schedule would have hindered my posting otherwise. I would like to correct my sourcing last round, as I already have in the comments, within the debate rounds as well: the number next to "Bohmian Mechanics" should…

For

• Well, Raistlin, this has, indeed, been a very fascinating topic to debate with all sorts of ramifications for other areas of study. Thanks again for broaching it! My opponent attempted to make a very theoretical case against the kalam cosmological argument by showing that a…
• Well, a big "thank you" to Raistlin for setting up this debate. It is turning out to be a very fun and eventful debate. I believe that we will both be better informed after all is "said and done." Raistlin begins in a most amusing manner by comparing the universe to various…

For

• In this round I will briefly summarize my points, and my responses to my opponent's points, and reaffirm my resolution that there is probably an afterlife. In round 2 I argued that: The proposition that everyone has just one finite life is obviously highly improbable, whether…
• "One thing my opponent said in his opening arguments that stood out to be was having one life is extremely improbable. Having one life does not seem improbable at all, and in fact, we only have been able to obtain evidence that suggests that we only have one life to live"I feel…

For

• Can on truly argue that the ends justify the means? A person's motivation for acting is quite important as it is most often what is used to define the person, not the action itself. As such, I first plan to prove the importance of motives through the issue of morality. Morality…
• A person's reason for taking action is just as important as the action itself. This is what I intended to prove within this debate. The first round will simply be to establish the topic of the debate and accepting of the challenge. Rounds 2-4 will consist of our arguments,…

For

• Love isn't emotional in the sense that it is arbitrary. In a sense we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do. We could 'love' someone and simultaneously 'lust' after another person and 'attachment' to another. We aren't in control of whom we 'love' due to chemistry. Due…
• Well these brain systems can be tricky. Having sex, can drive up dopamine in the brain and push you over the threshold toward falling in love. And with orgasm, you experience a flood of oxytocin and vasopressin--giving you feelings of attachment. "Casual sex isn't always…

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…