Philosophy Debate Topics — page 23

For

• Dehydration is not a disease lol, Maybe you could get a vaccine against it? Lol Joy is 100 percent pure, Or pain free, Like you can pet a cat and no pain has to be involved, If you pet it right you know hehe. . Where as love is balanced by hate, They can not exist without each…
• Humans need to fast, Fasting is the cure to all diseases, And addictions are the minds of diseases blanket statements, But if you think you can shoot this down somehow be my guest

For

• Well, originally, I thought I had accepted this debate as Con, since I strictly hold nihilistic views and would never approve of the concept of utilitarianism. I'll debate this, nonetheless. Good luck, phantom!
• Sorry for my absence in the last round. Give the opponent conduct... But still judge everything else. How does this debate have seven Facebook likes?I posed counter-arguments in my refutations that not only counter my opponent's claims but also develop my own claims. These…

For

• It is one I anticipated however. Refuting My Opponent's Objection"I admit that my opponent uses a good argument, but he ignores a big point. Does TPFTFS even exist? If TPFTFS doesn't exists, it fully refutes your point, and proves something can't come from nothing. "Although it…
• He is correct also, that I bear the BOP. It is my duty to show that something can come from nothing. Most people intuitively believe that something could not have possibly come from nothing. However, I believe this is false. I would argue that the potential for the first…

For

• A flaw in my reasoning was discovered. I know only accept that but I am thankful for it so I do not spread such information ever again. I do not have a well made out response to what my opponent said in this round, so I am going to try to steer this back in the right direction.…
• We do not need to verify that. We did not need to conduct a test, as the test was done naturally. We still had the question and the data recorded. We don't always have to set up a test, and not every step of the method is used. If a person receives a sharp, or very forceful…

For

• Firstly I thank con to attend round 2 actively. Coming to the topic: It is important to resolve some of the oppositions which con have raised. With reference to the definition of uplift (I mentioned in R1), con is arguing that " If any one uplift a little girl on his shoulders…
• Well, thanks my opponent...Yet I don't understand why con wasted the round 1 completely even though word limit was 3000! Either he had no clear point to argue with or he was too lazy to type his argument. In both the cases my opponent lost a golden chance to open his argument…

For

• Immortality is not bad it's good. Pleasures are not exhaustive, they are repeatable at some point in which they are fun again. You would never be bored because there will always be an activity that isn't boring or something new to do. Especially in an ever changing world, with…
• Thinking of death as a form of sleep is just a lie to trick the mind. You are in fact no sleeping at all. It is the ultimate end you are never waking up back to life. As Nagel states, " It is being alive, doing certain things., having certain experiences, that we consider good.…

For

• I'm very well aware of Google's definition of the word soul mate that is why I created this debate in the first place because I disagree with the definition, because a soul mate should understand and connect with you on every level and if they don't connect with you…
• I believe a soul mate can only be your significant other because if your best friend and best friend only was considered your soul mate the term would lose value.

For

• in any case you can mention
• so there is no wrong human behavior?

For

• I will be arguing that there is not absolute standard for morality and that morality is based on societal values. This means that no action no matter how morally unacceptable it may seem is immoral under every circumstance.
• I hope my opponent can respond in the next round but for now extend all arguements

For

• In my last round I will give a rebuttal to my opponent's case and simultaneously further my own arguments. Rebuttal Law of Nature (A2) My opponent seems to argue we cannot have moral disagreement, unless morality is objective. Here my opponent offers no justification whatsoever…
• Extending all arguments.My opponent has violated the rules of conduct, to which he agreed to by accepting this debate. The opening arguments are to be made in Round 2, as was stated in Round 1. It's a shame my opponent has not complied with the arrangement of this debate, as I…

For

• Please tell me how you wish to expand it and I will make it happen.
• Thank you for accepting. Beauty is often described as being seen in the eye of the beholder, but, true beauty is not just that which is seen; it's both inside and out. Contrary to popular belief, beauty is not just a gift that one is born with as a birthright, but one that is…

For

• First of all, you have not addressed any of the reasoning I provided in my opening post. I don't think you have made an argument here, you are just describing what the world would be like if determinism were true. You argue that time is a line stretching into the future laid…
• I will be arguing for the existence of what philosophers call agent causal libertarian free will, which is the position that we have the ability to make free choices which are neither random nor deterministic, but proceed from our rational nature as an agent. The existence of…

For

• Argument: We need laws to ensure all people have the chance to express their views with no restrictions and any legal consequences. The 2 main benefits to freedom of speech, I will argue are the following. Freedom of Speech Allows New Ideas to Exist Freedom of speech allows new…
• Freedom of Speech should have no limits to what you can say.

For

• I'm glad Con finally put forward terms and definitions critical to his debate. Objective: "... based on facts; unbiased."Value: "relative worth, merit, or importance..."Con went on to say, "There is no universal objective criteria that applies to all things which can be used to…
• Con started the round with, "First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal."Con stated what "objective" was not, but failed to…

For

• Allow me to address the crux of my opponents case, as he outlined it in this quote: "I contend that not only has my opposition not satisfied these burdens of proof, but his own argument states precisely why this is impossible. PRO states that "When dealing with the nature of…
• I appreciate my opponent's responses, but must point out where he is mistaken in his reasoning. I must fulfill 2 burdens in order to win this argument: 1. All I need to prove is that obama thinks that lying is wrong….I do not have to prove that his belief is actually a…

For

• Some situations where surrender works where futile struggle does not.
• Accepting defeat for a greater victory.

For

• Thanks to Con for the the debate. One thing I'd like to note up front: Con has not even attempted to support this contention that the laws of logic are just an "intrinsic part" of reality which is crucial to his case. All Con's talk about the laws of logic being a "concept"…
• Thanks to DakotaKrafick for his response. I admit that these objections weren't what I had expected. I still don't think they work.Con challenges two my premises; let's go through some salient points:Propositions (such as the LNC) are real entities, but cannot be physical…

For

• Well, this is the final round. I should pretty much win by default, which is too bad, but I'll put forth my idea of first-act altruism. In the example of an atheist anonymously donating money to charity, the only selfish motivation anti-altruists can find is the "good feeling"…
• Well, my opponent has forfeited this round, sadly. My arguments are not fleshed out in their full capacity, as my opponent has yet to respond. I will give him another round to try to respond and if he does not, I will fill in some holes in the final round to cement my point.

For

• First, I would like to say that this is my first debate, and I do not know how this really works but I am going to give it my best shot. Also, I don't see myself as an expert on theology, philosophy (or an expert in anything for that matter), I am but an average guy who tries…
• Use any information you find, the point is to come up with the best argument you can.

For

• Ok, my bad, I misinterpreted your statement. But just because a person is a good person that doesn't mean they can't do wrong things. My statement, Humans are inherently good, does in now way mean that humans can never do bad. Just because you a bad thing does not make you a…
• All right, first things first. I would like to point out that at no point did I say humans can do no wrong. I said humans naturally do good. What I mean to say by this is that we are naturally good and do bad things due to situational pressure. To use your example, if given the…

For

• IntroductionI must confess that I feel puzzled by Con's last response. Not only did he change a number of positions he holds yet again, but he presents his arguments completely clean of the criticisms I gave in the previous round. In my last round therefore, I will seek to show…
• IntroductionThe first thing I feel I should point out is that the counters I have given to Con's objections to the PoE have been largely accepted. It is now the case that the objections that Con holds to the PoE is no longer the Is-Ought problem, and he has changed his second…

For

• It can be shown that needs imply the lack of choice. If one has to do something, he or she has no choice in the matter. The question has become: Is taking up space a person's choice? My opponent argues that for all we know, therefore we must assume that, the mind [self] and the…
• My opponent suggests that we need to do three things, namely, We need to occupy space, we need to manipulate matter, and we need to manipulate energy. It is logical to lump the latter two into one, as Einstein's famous equation states: E = mc^2, mass and energy are different…

For

• My opponent has given some examples and anecdotes of a physical basis' of consciousness. To be sure there are many such examples more which he did not cite and we could fill many books with them all. That is not why I am here today however. I am here to show the illogicality of…
• I agree to the terms of debate. I will argue there is a non-physical aspect to consciousness. I will argue that consciousness does not only exist in the mind. i will also argue that consciousness can not be reduced only to states within the mind. I will reject physicalism as a…

For

• Thanks for your response Cameron. == Definitions == My opponent doesn't quite seem to understand what the term "utility" means in economics. It's not accurately characterized by the word "happiness." Utility has to do with the total benefits that one derives from an action. On…
• Thanks for the response Cameron. I'll proceed to a rebuttal of my opponent's points. == Definitions == My opponent tries to make me advocate the Bentham/Mill's version of utilitarianism. This makes no sense. Advances in philosophy have corrected for many of the flaws in their…

For

• There is definitely good and bad music. While some may believe it is based solely on perspective and one's taste, I believe it is not. Today, it seems as if music has taken a turn for the worst. Has everything innovative and exciting been discovered and explored? It feels as if…

For

• I am glad that you posted I was worried you were going to forfeit and that was no fun for me the last time it happened. I am thankful for the definitions, but the problem is that this is an attempt to define a new paradigm of all these things. Not that that necessarily…
• Thanks for joining the debate. I'm sorry, but what I said earlier may not have been as clear as I meant it to be (I know that sounds lame but it's true). The idea that experience forms our conception of reality is based on the idea that what we create must be, eventually if we…

For

• I thank whoever accepts this debate for debating this topic with me. I have been wishing to debate this topic and I wish whoever accepts it good luck. I have posted the rules and what to do in each round as well as the definitions below. Abuse: Constant use or a hefty amount of…
• renji_abarai did not forfeit this round.

For

• I believe that love and hate are opposites of one another and they cannot exist without one another. Con has said that love and hate are not opposites, but I believe they are.The world is full of opposites, and so are you. You must bring it all into balance in this world.…
• I believe that if there is no hate, there'll be no love, and if there is no love, there'll be no hate. If you go against that, I'll be happy to challenge you, if you're the first to accept my challenge.

For

• It appears that I was too loose in my wording and for that, I apologise. By everything I do not mean every object, every substance and every material. Ofcourse things can be natural and not man made. The way in which we as individuals, view things, however, irrespective of what…
• It is my belief that everything is man made. Society's morals, views and values are all social constructs. Something that society and it's members have established over time. I look forward to a challenging debate.

For

• Here the process, I mean by the path of you doing something; and for a result, I mean by what you get from finishing doing something. So from your statement, "If someone focuses on the process too much, They may lose sight of their goal, The result, " I want to clarify my topic…
• Thank you for accepting my topic. I agree with you that the process does not exist without the result, I get what you mean here that how the process would be not valuable if the result has no means. However, As you"ve stated, "If there is no result, Then the process had never…

For

• Rebuttal to Agnosticism Further Defined My opponent accuses me of "re-defining" the definition of Agnosticism. However, I gave the correct definition off of the Oxford dictionary. In fact my opponent affirms his position that the Oxford dictionary defined as he says right here…
• What is Agnosticism? According to the Oxford dictionary[1], an Agnostic is: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." From the…

For

• Our essence is what we define ourselves as being. We cannot define ourselves as a volitional species--it is our nature. Much like we cannot deny that humans (typically) have two legs and two arms, we cannot say that we are not free to choose. Our faculty of volition is a…
• My opponent throws the word 'value' around as if it itself had none. He believes that value on has merit if it assigned by an external source, otherwise he would be okay with the idea that it is ourselves that assign value. He is uncomfortable with the idea that our fates rest…

For

• I don't know what you said!
• I see but we should be thankful when life is far from perfect because there are many people who aren't luckier than us so we should be thankful for what we have and all the people around us!

For

• "You joined with the civil society, you have benefited in some way from the civil society, and now that the civil society has changed its rules, you, as a member of that society also much change." I don't disagree with that, but it is, nevertheless, an unfortunate indicator of…
• "to become a free individual they must exit our society. To exit our society, is to remove any debt of obligation to that society" In other words, society requires nothing of truly free individuals. So it follows that you agree with my premise that truly free individuals are…

For

• I can"t provide proof of why this moral system is fundamentally true because you would need to know everything to provide an explanation of a set of moral rules that hasn"t been found yet. I"m not arguing that this fundamental truth can be used, Or is in any form practical,…
• I am arguing the point that, For something to be considered as "morals", It can not be subjective. By definition morals can"t differ from persons to person, Otherwise those aren"t morals. A moral is a principle, And a principle is a fundamental truth. A fundamental truth can"t…

For

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

For

• Resolution: No being can posses omniscience as a property.I will be arguing that it is logically impossible for any being to posses omniscience as a property. My opponent will be arguing the opposite. The burden of proof is shared.DefinitionsOmniscience - Knowing…
• Unfortunately, Con has decided to forfeit. I extend all my arguments.

For

• IntroductionI apologize for forfeiting a round; I didn't make it in time. Either way, I think it is clear that I will have this debate in the bag after this round. What Is An Infinite Regress?"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1…
• My Argument My argument is simple. Some truth must not be illogical, but logically necessary. All truth entails an infinite regress. Therefore, not all infinite regresses are illogical. If they were, then all truth would have to be illogical by association; which is not the…

For

• My opponent claims that a human mind is not void of ego during a state of unconsciousness. Rebuttal: "With this discussion, we are dealing with a humans mental state and not the physical state. With that said, for a human to be freed or liberated, the subject would need to be…
• Thank you I appreciate you for your clarification of the definition of ego. This clarificiation makes this debate more interesting and more challenging than I originally anticipated. Now that the terms are defined, I will be arguing that a human can truly be liberated from…

For

• there is not such thing freewill

For

• Thank you MrDelaney for accepting. You of all people should know that the future can be changed then. My first and foremost point is that you can prevent any bodily harm to your self. Which might not be the case with most superpowers. For instance, flight, there is always the…
• I will prove while time control is the best (and safest) super power of all, and that it has the least amount of downsides in comparison to all other super powers. I define time control as the ability to stop pause rewind and fast forward all aspects of time, this includes…

For

• Unfortunately, my opponent has not accepted my original definition, nor my second option for change. I will be forced to unapprove of his change of my original definition given in round 1. That being said, I will now show my arguments. I point to . http://www.near-death.com...…
• I appreciate my opponent taking the time to have this debate, And I also found our screen names humorous. I was also in the JROTC in my High School days, good times. I realized while creating this debate, that the strongest argument against my proposition would be that of…

For

• IF you say that all KNOWLEDGE IS UNCERTAIN then your knowledge of everything is uncertain, like your knowledge of all knowledge being uncertain is uncertain. You just contradicted your self by saying that all knowledge is uncertain. I can't even be certain about what I just…
• I didn't mean to forfeit this 2 past rounds, but honestly I couldn't think of anything to answer you that would make sense to me, but no, I was not certain when I said "I can and will argue every thing you tell me to prove you can't know anything for sure." But I was hoping I…

For

• I believe that the doctrine of agnosticism inherently has at least one thing in it that does not make logical sense and I want to explore that idea more. I'm not super formal as a debater just so my opponent is aware. I will start with a definition and then, if my opponent…
• Well since CON forfeited last round I will just reassert all of those statements for this round in case he debates in the final round. I would still be interested in hearing his rebuttal. I said I had more on "B." so I guess I'll post a small amount on that, no need to go into…

For

• https://ledonc.files.wordpress.com...
• 1. If consciousness is volitional, it can still be causal ­­- it is merely causal in the way that its nature requires, and the nature of the soul is to be able to choose what it will do and what its exact identity is. In this way, the soul can choose its cause, keeping intact…

For

• I will try to address your main point first. You base your refutation on circular causation, to that you claim that "Our use of language is shaped just as much by our perception of the world as it is the other way around" The other way around being that our world is shaped by…
• You still you need to prove your point by using an argument for it, not state it. Also you need to refute my claims by attacking them. You have not done that. You say that " I don't see everybody as sharing the same reality" How? What makes you say that? You say that " I do see…

For

• "the conclusion would be that "In essence, when all motion or change stops, *existence* effectively stops, because there is nothing that exists that is not constantly in motion, and it is physically inconceivable that this should happen." If ALL motion did cease, life would…
• "Time, like space, is a necessary and a priori condition of existence. In the above quote, even you say that time is a necessary measure. Necessary = "absolutely essential; indispensable" (The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Ed.) So your words end up meaning that time, even…

For

• Thanks Con! Onto the final round.Con gives 3 objections; let's go through each of them.AnalogyCon argues that maths cannot be used to prove anything in the universe because it is an unsound analogy. However, it seems that the axioms of maths are universal, necessary and…
• Thanks Pro! I hope you enjoy this debate!First for the introductory definitions. i) S = everything that exists or has existed. ii) --> on S = if some y-->x then y is a cause of x. iii) x is at least one of the causes of x for all x in S iv) :. --> is transitive. v) If x-->y and…

For

• First of all don't be silly Con, i already know that! There can also be Agnostic Deists! Con, we can completely dismiss your whole argument on how you addressed the concept of a creator and put labels on "it". I defined the creator as someone or something that creates from the…
• First of all Con is asserting that the hypothesis of a creator to life has to be defined under those biblical terms of God. However, I can argue "God" can just be a catalyst to what sparked the Big Bang or "God" could even be a malevolent entity in the sky that is just…

For

• I do agree that there is an obvious need for reproduction however for man or any animal to reproduce love isn't considered necessary and lust will do. And also about the revealing feelings part, i think the debate is about man loving woman regardless of the woman's acceptance…
• welcome to the debate, seeker of truth. I accept your definition of love however let me redefine necessity and also compulsion necessity- an indispensable thing or person. here it implies that man loves woman because without that he can't survive. compulsion-an irresistible…