Philosophy Debate Topics — page 31

2,288 debate topics, all ages. Debatable motions with arguments for and against. Open the arguments below, pick one at random, or present them full-screen.

All agesDebatePage 31 of 46

1501.
Opinions can be objectively true
For
OpeningGood day to anyone who is reading this. I am WilliamsP, a member of this great site, debate.org. I am here to debate a very serious matter: I believe that opinions are facts. I would like to establish common ground. If an individual accepts this debate, he or she will…
ConclusionI somewhat enjoyed this debate. Yet, I feel that my opponent has misinterpreted some things. First of all, this debate was never intended to be semantic. Secondly, my opponent has not provided direct rebuttals to my arguments. Thirdly, the main misinterstanding in…
Against
I will conclude with a few points of summation that also address my opponent's conclusion. 1. Whether this debate was intended to be semantic or not has little meaning when considering what made contesting this resolution possible. To have attacked it on other grounds would…
I will once again reiterate my contention in the hopes that it will be directly addressed in this final round. To begin, I will address my opponent's question as to why I have failed to provide sources. As my only contention with my opponents proposition is his interpretation…
1502.
Non-cognitivism is the proper model of morality
For
Ho hum... AFFIRMED.
No arguments put forth. Extend mine. AFFIRMED.
Against
"What I fear and desire most in this world is passion. I fear it because it promises to be spontaneous, out of control, unnamed, beyond my reasonable self. I desire it because passion has color, like the landscape before me. It is not pale. It is not neutral. It reveals the…
Really? of course you don't look beyond the social conceptions that were brought forth through the society
1503.
It is reasonable to believe that Santa Claus exists
For
I thank the Grinch for taking the sucker punch I threw at him like a champ :P === Intro === Con has not challenged the first two premises of my argument, so it appears he agrees that it's logically possible that Santa could exist and that *if* modal realism is true, then Santa…
== The Argument == (1) Possibly, Santa Claus exists. (premise) (2) If modal realism is true, necessarily, all possible truths obtain in one or more possible worlds. (definition) (3) Modal realism is true. (premise) (4) Possibly, necessarily Santa Claus exists in one or more…
Against
It's more just completely ridiculous than funny, to be honest, but I suppose I'm not majoring in philosophy. The last bit was fairly funny :P But seriously, what sort of a course is philosophy at all? Like, will you actually be learning anything useful? Do you at anytime…
And here comes the Grinch! I trust you, J.Kenyon. Let's dance!
1504.
Philosophy has nothing new to offer after Nietzsche
For
I'm clearly not going to get a chance to read "The Rebel", the "Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" before responding, but I will quote the intro to "The Rebel" "Philosophy can be used for any purpose -- even for transforming murderers into judges" To respond to how Nazi…
I am very well versed on Nietzsche, and am aware to some extent of the philosophical extensions of his "God is dead" proclamation. I do agree that it is used very much out of context today. I think if you take just The Gay Science's proclamation of "God is dead", you end where…
Against
Possible Existence of BiasPro argues that anyone who attributes the rise of Nazism to Nietzsche cannot be objective. However, Pro hasn't cited any reason to believe that Camus was of this opinion. Most Nietzsche scholars don't think that his doctrines legitimately justify…
"Nietzsche's first step is to accept what he knows. Atheism for him goes without saying and is "constructive and radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke a kind of crisis and a final decision about the problem of atheism. The world continues on its…
1505.
Utilitarianism is a valid ethical framework
For
1) Utility defies human nature. I'm not how this is 1) true or 2) how that makes it a bad paragigm. If anything, pleasure seeking is what defines human nature. We go around looking for happiness, not as mindless drone bent on survival at all costs. We are rational beings, which…
In utilitarianism, the agent or actor, must weigh the consequences of the possible action as an independent objectivist. Meaning, that he/she/it must evaluate the circumstance as if they had an equal stake in each persons situation. The objective nature of the decision making…
Against
You've misconstrued my arguments: 1. I never said "utility" defies human nature, I said someone foregoing the pursuit of his own self interests so that strangers may prosper defies human nature. Defying human nature is a "bad program" because it cannot be sustained. Any…
Utilitarianism applied to the individual defies human nature. Humans cannot be expected to weigh the "pleasure" vs. "pain" of all of society before taking a given action. Humans are naturally going to be biased in favor of maximizing their own pleasure. Man should not be a…
1506.
Hiding a truth is different from lying
For
Lie is an intent of persuading others and misdirecting someone to believe something else. However, hiding the truth is basically not bringing the real truth to the surface and making sure it stays HIDDEN (Completely unaware in the eyes of the victim). Yes, I know you put up…
My contender just posted out sources defining the meaning of lie which is completely not what I was looking for in a debate. I was expecting more of examples or scenarios and explaining how it affects the perspective of the person. According to me, the contender's argument was…
Against
I want to apologize to my opponent if I did anything that might have made him mad.I will be rebuttal my opponent on the scenario he has put up "Lying depends on it's integrity of manipulation. However, hiding is simply hiding. There is no manipulation required in hiding…
I will rebutting on my opponents recent argument he posted "My contender just posted out sources defining the meaning of a lie" I put up those sources and different dictionaries to show my opponent that no matter what dictionary the word is it will have the same meaning. "which…
1507.
There are no objectively right answers in ethics
For
Religion is wrong. Following anything religion says is also wrong. The reason it is wrong is because I believe it is wrong and my upbringing made me think so. This statement may sound utterly shocking to most seeing as how many of the people in today's society are in fact…
The meaning of the term religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods as per the Merriam-Webster dictionary. As i previously stated in my past arguments, the meaning of ethics is rules of behavior based on ideas about…
Against
When you start to believe that religion or God is not a major factor in right and wrong ethics, then why do people follow the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments was made so us humans can abide by them and honor them all the days of our lives. If religion is not the cause or…
When you address issues such as right and wrong, instead of defending what others may believe, you should go with what you think is right. Basically, if you"re going against right and wrong do you believe in God? I ask this because religion and who/what you believe in really…
1508.
Aquinas' natural law theory cannot explain moral objectivism
For
My opponent is confusing moral objectivism, the belief that moral truths actually exist, with Objectivism, the crackpot pseudo-philosophy of Russian-American author Alisa Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand). His refutation of it is interesting but extremely off topic. God did not ask Abraham…
My opponent has sort of gone off on an irrelevant tangent about Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism. I am going to stand by my arguments and press him on the Sacrifice of Isaac. I think we can all agree that commanding a man to kill his own son is immoral, no matter what the…
Against
My opponent say's I'm confusing moral objectivism but I don't think I am off base. I was merely explaining terms of objectivism and naturalism and the opposition. If these words are applied to the term moral then they must be defined. I am also a Christian and do not think God…
My oppoenent seemed to think I was off base. I was simply showing that Objectivism is simply objection of Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law. Natural states that we all have a internal moral code that all should follow but Objectivism refuses this and denies thier internal moral…
1509.
Pascal's Wager should not be followed because it is flawed
For
Beem0r has completely and utterly missed my entire point. I stated, "There is absolutely not guarantee that the religion one is attempting to settle with actually will put forth infinite happiness. Not only is there this lack of a guarantee but there is absolutely no definite…
Premise one is agreed with by myself in the majority of situations. I feel it is a good idea to make decisions that maximize benefits. There are some exclusions obviously. If perhaps my beneficial decision hurt others then I would not agree. Or perhaps if the outcome of said…
Against
I realize that there is no way to determine an exact probability of a thing like a religion being true. This is why I said "Perceived probability" many times in my case. If I tihnk religion X is 0.1% likely, then that's the likelihood I should use for it being true. I could…
I. Decisions should be made based on maximizing self-benefit. My opponent made no objections to this premise. II. When there is uncertainty about A> whether a thing will happen, or B> how much benefit there will be on average if it does happen, the product of perceived…
1510.
Fate is more influential than fortune in life
For
However, fortune in definition is "prosperity attained partly through luck" from Merriam-Webster. I agree that indeed luck is a part but fate stretches beyond that. People may say you have a lucky fate, in other words, a lucky future. If your going to have a relationship with…
My apologies opponent for not clearly stating what I meant by "fortune". Clearly fortune has many different meanings though the one that is used here is quite self explanatory. Fortune as being "luck" are the odds in favor of an event happening. Fate is different in which…
Against
So you're basically saying that Fate is the out come or result of an action or event. But for that resolution to happen there has to be some events that have to happen at the certain moment for the outcome to happen. This is basically your definition of fate. Since the…
My opponent's opinion states that my opponent thinks that everything is planned before we do something. For example it was already determined that I would take part in this debate. But in the resolution it's stated that Fate is more likely than fortune. Since fortune was not…
1511.
Nationality alone is not a valid reason to support something
For
Implicit Propositions "When examining the parties involved in a situation like the one brought up by my opponent, he excluded nationality as a group that has authority to oblige a person to support another unconditionally on the grounds that nationality was only "shared…
1. Good Reasons To begin, I will address my opponent's rejection of "good reason". Firstly, the proposal that we should "each have our own definition on the matter" is an impossible one if a proper debate is to be had. If we each have our own definition, than it is possible…
Against
Rebuttal 1 – Implicit Propositions My opponent argues that because I said that an obligation COULD come from nationality and not how it DOES come from nationality, my rebuttal is wrong. May I remind my opponent and all other readers that there are always multiple reasons…
Since my main problem with the definition of "good reason" was the portion regarding "founded on facts", I accept my opponent's revised definition and am ready to advance in the debate.Rebuttal 1 - Implicit PropositionsWhen examining the parties involved in a situation like the…
1512.
Human life is only temporary
For
unless you are a god like Jesus, moses, muhammed, or Obama
Human weakness is natural, maybe even ORGANIC! Should we strive to not be organic? Health rules? maybe in spartan times, but not here, unless you are a tyrant. Are humans god? the further science goes the more they believe it. I am praying for an asteroid.
Against
Over coming weaknesses, yes human.
This argument is a tough one. , you need to be strong to not live life, life is shorter being weak. Life is more permanent that way.
1513.
Absolute nothingness is impossible
For
I have grown pretty used to others simply accepting the points that i make so you arguing against me is positivley thrilling. I am truly enjoying having a intelegent discussion for once. While you make a excellent point in defense of nothing as the absence of a form of…
As i have stated Nothing can be defined as a absence of all matter but there is always some form of matter. even a vacuum which i known as an are with no matter within it is in reality a area with extremely small amounts of matter. Even the space in between the components of an…
Against
You have simultaneously asserted that my points are correct, and the rest of your argument falls under the fallacy of moving the goal posts. http://en.wikipedia.org...
While it has been shown that the atom, which was considered the fundamental unit of matter is now just the fundamental unit of an element, and that those sub-atomic particles do break down into even smaller particles known as quarks, what can be asserted, is that there can be…
1514.
Objectivism is not a logically valid philosophy
For
1. Existence a. (1)She used the axiom by her own definition incorrectly. Only Objective empirical things are real. Existence is Existence, it's not physical or Objective it doesn't exist. (2) Leibniz says Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He meant…
1. Existence a. I meant it was a Tautology. The Law of Identity teaches nothing that you don't already know, was goes in is at best synonymous with what comes out. b. I assume you accept my message that Existence cannot exist in "reality" because you're now disproving by theory…
Against
1. Existence a. The law of identity isn't meant to "teach" anything. It's an axiom. It codifies a self-evident truth. Leibniz argued that "A is A" tells you nothing of existence. He was wrong. I established this in Round 2, and Pro conceded it. b. There is no "change in…
1. Existence a. My opponent concedes that the law of identity does, in fact, give you information about existence. His initial argument is that, "according to Gottfried Leibniz, these "truths" tell you absolutely nothing about anything in existence." My opponent is…
1515.
Science has a fundamental flaw in describing reality
For
There is one assumption that must be granted for this topic to be debated successfully: Science claims it is discovering truths about reality. Here is my argument: Science cannot describe to us the true nature of reality. To paraphrase Richard Rorty, the idea that the truth is…
Against
Tra la la http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
1516.
All things in motion aim to seek balance
For
I will first address Con's previous statements. Con: "First of all, if something is balanced, then it is not whole or "perfect" therefore proving premise #3, in which there is a WHOLE (not two seperate parts)." I disagree. If something is balanced, then it IS whole or…
First I want to address the 3 statements Con made. #1 implies that the Universe is already in balance and we just don't know it. I disagree. If we were truly in balance, there would be absolute serenity. A timeless equilibrium in which nothing moves or has purpose; like a…
Against
Ok, after a little explanation in the comments section... PRO " I disagree. I believe that a "whole" is the result of balanced parts. whole adjective \G2;h!3;l1) complete or full : not lacking or leaving out any part (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) In other words,…
PRO: "#2 is more closely aligned with my belief. I believe there was once a perfect stillness and balance, and then something (God perhaps) splashed his hand in the ocean setting off massive chain reactions as a response to the unbalancing. These chain reactions, seen…
1517.
Greater knowledge increases awareness of one's ignorance
For
Increases in knowledge, increases the realization that one lacks knowledge Increased knowledge results in the understanding of increased complexities. In turn, a wider and deeper range of possibilities for knowledge becomes apparent. This leads one to realize that they don't…
Increase in knowledge, increases the knowledge that one lacks knowledge
Against
KvoteFtieC
Just because you do not perceive that you did not know things before does not mean you still didn't know them. Your statement is like saying that as long as you do not know you have a flat tire, you do not have a flat tire.
1518.
The course of world history is largely predetermined
For
Will you bring up an interesting argument, Evolution. My question was about human history, but I certainly recognize the impact of the non-human organisms on human history. Now to argue in this debate you'd have to stick to the parameters of the question just like in any…
Another Example. People say that creation of steel was an accident. And technical I'll admit it was an accident. In antiquity a person smelting Iron led a jar of carbon fall in it and created a super hard material. Steel remained to be produced in a small scale all over the…
Against
I apologize for not responding in round 1. I had very little free time due to the holiday season and an increase in work hours accordingly. I did type up a lengthy, near 8,000 character response originally, but my web browser decided to close randomly before it could be…
1519.
The pen is mightier than the sword
For
In keeping with the general format, I am going to list my opponents arguments based on the order in which they were presented and in what order they were said. So to start off with, I would like to draw the judges' attention to her first argument off my first point, which I…
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." Mahatma Gandhi No one has proven the point that violence is not the only option, nor is it the best option better than Gandhi. Because he was able to accomplish…
Against
1 A&B. I agree with my opponent - MOST fights that occur on the playground will not leave a child paralyzed or seriously physically harmed. However the topic of debate isn't about probability factor or which gets used more often (pen or sword). This debate is about which is…
My position as Con does not call for me to prove why the sword is mightier than the pen, but rather oppose the resolution that the pen is mightier than the sword. In this round I will refute all four of my opponent's arguments and prove why, according to his reasoning, the pen…
1520.
Belief without logical support can be reasonable
For
Con states that my argument is wrong but does not give any clear indication of what is supposed to be wrong with it. On the other hand, I have provided two clear criticisms of Dr_lillo's argument: Criticism one: The argument is vague and hard to understand and does not seem to…
Voters should note that Dr_lillo at this point has apparently not offered any analysis of my argument. It is still unclear to me precisely what he is attempting to demonstrate. I am aware that fact and logic are different, but I fail to see how this observation is importantly…
Against
I stated that the method that you used to analyze this subject is not the right way you have to use ( as mentioned above ) I am not obligated to analyze in your way . let the voters decide which one of us described his method to prove his aim. also, you stated my argument is…
The aim of this argument is to seek the truth of a proposition .you offered wrong analysis in your argument in my point of view as you mentioned below :in round 1"a. we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it either because something other than logic identifies them…
1521.
Alan Watts was a great philosopher
For
My opponent assumes that I have a burden of prof which requires factual citations and evidence to prove but we are debating a subjective topic you see. Not objective, such as the nature quantum mechanics. This debate resolution is within the realm of subjectivity, my opponent…
Alan Watts is a important philosopher because he brought the eastern ways of thought to the west. Though his views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization his message stands as guidance for those of want to wake up from the delusion of…
Against
Good day and Thank you for the debate. Alan Watts supposedly brought eastern ways of thought to the west how he did well my opponent doesn't say. His views did not get rid of the materialistic capitalist mentality of western civilization? why not my opponent does not say. How…
Hitler was not a great philosopher he was an idiot you don't try to take over the world by attacking everyone at the same time you take over it by getting everyone to attack each other. The quote is actually very relevant to my argument while I am arguing that no one can be…
1522.
Destiny exists because human behavior is fully predictable
For
There is a future laid out already that theoretically could be perfectly predicted. Therefore your choices are the result of biology more than what one might understand as 'free-will'.
Haha seems so. No i once again took on too many debates than I could manage. This is what I wrote before I ran out of time if anybody was interested. I will re do this debate. I apologise If a computer can simulate a ball dropping and calculate from its characteristics and…
Against
Accept.
It's not even theoretically possible because since the universe is infinite, and matter could be scattered throughout the universe, we can't even theoretically calculate the motion of all the atoms. (Because we would have to calculate infinity, which is not an actual…
1523.
The cause of the universe was a personal being
For
Space left blank as agreed.
It is a true dichtomy. What else can there be? You gotta give a third. You did not
Against
"It is a true dichtomy."Bare-assertion fallacy [1]. You made a claim and just assumed its truth without justification. "What else can there be? You gotta give a third."Switching the burden of proof fallacy [2]. Your argument rests on the assumption that it is founded on a true…
Rebutting Pro"There's two causes. Personal and natural. "Pro has not defended this as a true-dichotomy, ans assumes the two are even different. Also his dichotomy it is in no way self-evident, as it may only pertain to our spatio-temporal universe. "The jews could be killed…
1524.
Knowledge is memory of personal physical experience
For
the thing is, 2+2 is an equation, and equations are true not about truth the past is 0, and now is 1, I can have 1 soda in my hand now if I have to imagine it.. clearly its not a past observation is it true that I just looked at my dog? actually, I dont have a dog, but am I…
the past is not true, only now is true so 2+2=4 is now I have to imagine you have five fingers on your hands, I have no observed this, therefore It is not a past observation to me
Against
I don't think a single point you made in your last argument (or in any of your arguments for that matter) was relevant for this debate. In order to win the debate, you'd need to show that the facts I listed in the opening round are dependent upon the memory of a single…
"the past is not true, only now is true... so 2+2=4 is now"2+2=4 now and 2+2=4 an hour ago. This fact in particular is independent of both memory and time."I have to imagine you have five fingers on your hands, I have no observed this, therefore It is not a past observation to…
1525.
An afterlife exists beyond physical death
For
Thank you, sir! I will make sure to comply under everyone of your rules. Sometimes I might make grammatical errors. Pardon me for that, I am a non-native speaker. I believe we will conduct a compelling debate and learn from each others point's of view.
Against
I've chosen Samuel60. Definitions: Afterlife: "The realm... in which an essential part of an individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body (brain death, after complete nonfunctional activity of the brain ) in the individual's lifetime."…
w
1526.
Complete equality among all people is impossible
For
My opponent will be arguing that complete equality of all people is possible. I am arguing that complete equality of all people is impossible. Good luck to my opponent.
lol, thank you. Oh wow, that's great. Thanks so much. I would like to change the statement. The new statement up for debate is- Complete Equality of all Living Breathing People is Impossible.
Against
Equality is defined as "as great as; the same as". I believe that all people could be equal if they all died. While this is not desirable, we would all be equal. When all people are dead, then they all are experiencing the same thing: nothing. Dead people are equal in: -Income…
Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. I await a rebuttal in the next round, perhaps.
1527.
Omniscience and omnipotence rule out free will
For
not going to use 8,000 characters. everything will be taken in clear black and white. commonsense must be needed, thanks. use your brain! ;) If God is all-knowing then He would have already known if you were going to Heaven or Hell before He made you in the first place. He knew…
Against
My apponent has forfeited again. It wasn't much of a debate, I guess. It would be nice if you'd vote anyway, though, so I don't have another debate end up in the "tied" section. Thank you for your time.
Oh no! My opponent has forfeited!
1528.
The unmoved mover argument for God is sound
For
To respond to the comment muzebreak made: "I'd take this one, but with the way you phrased it, It's to easy. Matter's natural state is to be in motion, hence light never stopping except through our intervention. But because of gravity's effect on mass, matter is not constantly…
Basically if something is moved in the universe then it was moved by something else and so on, but a series of infinite movers is not possible under the laws of cosmology. So somewhere down the line there has to be a mover that moves things but is not moved by anything…
Against
last argument, might as well not argue
um... ok, if that's what you mean then the answer is simple, the energy of the big bang was divided into different places and one of the places was kinetic energy.
1529.
The most important question is how to improve the human mind
For
Since the Con is either forfeiting or not addressing my arguments, there is no point in continuing. I believe I have won this debate but I will repost it in order to find a better Con. Let me know in the comments if you'd like to be the next one.
I'm sorry but I've only read your first two paragraphs because I was hoping for a serious debate and you've disappointed me greatly. I'll repost this debate as soon as it is over and hope for a better Con.Regarding the first paragraph... Hippocrates actually said "Practise two…
Against
My arguments haven't been addressed either, and in the last round my opponent basically forfeited the debate. His conduct has been extremely rude, my round forfeits should be ignored, just vote on strength of arguments. Note my arguments contained rebuttals within them, while…
Learning and technological advancement are causing all kinds of problems to the environment, animals and people. I believe the advice of hippocrittes, is still relevant today as it was when he was alive."First do no harm" The ultimate question, and the most pressing question…
1530.
The world is not yet civilized
For
Yes, the world is indeed uncivilized. In a world where man was created to propagate peace, he is forgetting his duty. He is the very cause of barbarity prevailing today. Be it molestation, corruption, murders- it all revolves around him.
No, I am not proposing anything of that sort. I also never mentioned about mentally ill people committing crimes. According to the world press, murders are 95 % more likely to be committed by people without psychiatric labels than by people with psychiatric labels. So, these…
Against
Civility is a concept created by humans. It is within each man or woman to make their own decision whether or not as a whole their species is behaving in a civil manner. As man evolves he develops new concepts that are constantly being developed and destroyed. We are currently…
I don't think you read more than one sentence of my argument. I argued that mental illness accounts for most criminal behavior not the mentally challenged. Such disorders as major depressive disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, bipolar, antisocial personality disorder all…
1531.
Dreams can be meaningfully interpreted
For
in waking state body and mind co ordinates . experience and experience r are preset. where as experiences takes place in dream state, when body is n aware. i totally insists that our body is having a alarming system to know our inner feelings like, fear, emotions, health…
dream interpretation is an un known phenomenon. if it is revealed with clarity we can take adequate steps to stream line our life how as to lead a coordinated life. we wonder at the people how much they are curious and believe in dream inter pretation
Against
Dream interpretation - "•Dream interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to dreams." [1] Dream interpretation is assigning meaning to the meaningless, and so, it is inaccurate and un-scientific. Now, before I get too far into this, I will say that every now and again,…
However, I will just say that I leave this in the hands of the voters. Read through all arguments and all evidence. Thank you.
1532.
Daniel Dennett's arguments against qualia fail
For
What you have provided is a summary of his claims about qualia and his objective in his paper, but not his arguments against qualia. His arguments are almost always presented as thought experiments. I suggest you pick three of those.
Daniel Dennett has argued against qualia as he describes them in "Quining Qualia" and other books and articles. I will take the position that any arguments Dennett has made that the Con/Challenger picks, up to three to be presented in his first round, fail to produce a knock…
Against
You didn't even refute those ponts you whining baby.Here are some thought experiments: The coffee-taster case. As Dennett argues, the idea or "intuition" that qualia exist is a robust one that dies hard. It is very natural for us to assume that there are such properties, just…
Whenever someone experiences something as being one way rather than another, this is true in virtue of some property of something happening in them at the time, but these properties are so unlike the properties traditionally imputed to consciousness that it would be grossly…
1533.
It is impossible to prove anything
For
"I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes"How can one prove the the author of these words was named Rene Descartes? Also, Con cannot know that I think. Con can simply believe that I think."You are thinking"How can prove oen prove a statement…
There's nothing I can do? I can ask for evidence that this site exists. I believe that Con has contended that this site exists, and therefore they must prove it exists. I believe that I have nothing to rebut here because Con has merely provided a claim and nothing else. Does…
Against
<< This is my signature profile photo. If you scroll over it, you read JasperFrancisShickadance. You can do so in any other rounds that Con or Pro wrote already, and you will see that all the rounds--including the one at the top of this page that says 'Instigator.' All through…
I do not have the ability to make these words bold or italic without there being no spaces between paragraphs, so I shall do it like this. I can prove all these things... - Your existence: I can prove to you that you are here through the statement by Rene Descartes, "I think,…
1534.
The concept of omnipotence is logically incoherent
For
A careful reading of my opponents opening round proves MY point: I HAVE rested my case.
A careful reading of my opponents opening round proves MY point: I HAVE rested my case.
Against
Well, since DAT is either incapable or unwilling of responding to my arguments, I'll just outline the two points that give me the easy win. 1) The contradictions arising around omnipotence have nothing to do with the term. Using the example of the rock too heavy for God to…
Even the most plebeian reading of my opponent's argument proves that he does not understand the concept. **************************************************** Omnipotence is the power to do anything. The omnipotence paradox is a flawed argument. A "solution" to the omnipotence…
1535.
Sentience should determine how living things are ethically treated
For
Framework 1) The shared burden means each side must show their position to be more likely than their opponent's. In this round this means I must show that sentience is more likely to be of ethical relevance than not, while Con must do the converse. It then follows that it is…
An initial thanks is in order first to royalpaladin for engaging me in this debate and second to those of you willing to commit your time and attention to judge this debate.Theoretical Framework: 1) Shared Burden of Proof was agreed to in R1. To win this debate Pro need not…
Against
Framework He responds to my observation by claiming that I must show that the ethical framework that I propose is more likely true. This is nonsensical because morality is a subjective norm that individuals use to determine the extent of their obligations. Thus, I cannot…
Note that my opponent concedes that sentience is not equivalent to the capacity for sentience. This will be important as an example later in the round. Theoretical FrameworkThe standard that the pro creates for himself as per the resolution is that sentience is an absolute…
1536.
Everyone except nihilists operates on some form of faith
For
Con's definition of moral nihilism in the second round: "The moral nihilist believes that moral questions have no meaning." From this definition flows a criterion for deciding your vote: Has Con provided a rational basis for believing that moral questions have meaning without…
Con stated, "Over time, people have better understood the nature of mankind and tuned their religious institutions in accordance with the better understanding." Con thereby posits a progression of morality as our species better understands the nature of our species. Con…
Against
Pro says, "I contend that all but the nihilist shares faith. Faith in the value of individual human life and dignity flows from philosophy or is accepted as self-evident. Humanities' common faith ..." and "... the type of faith I am describing guides the way we live. Faith in a…
I gave elaborate examples to show why morality is species-dependent, but Pro claims I presented no evidence. I gave multiple historical examples of religion evolving to eliminate things like human sacrifice, slavery, and the divine right of kings; but Pro clams I offered no…
1537.
Agnosticism is the most logical position on higher powers
For
In comparison to all of the other world religions I find agnosticism to be the most logical belief of them all. For many reasons I find this to be true which I will further outline at a later juncture. First come regardless of your personal belief system.
It does not, however knowing does. In any case every thought should be accompanied with a strong dose of doubt. In that way agnosticism is the most logical. The two situations are not completely analogous though. You could use DNA to prove that that child is in fact that man's…
Against
Hello. Primarily, agnosticism is generally categorized not as a religion, but as a non-religious "belief system." So your first point that agnosticism is the most logical religion meets a flaw in that it is not a religion. Secondly, agnosticism means "not to know." And unlike…
You use, incorrectly, the term "beyond a reasonable doubt." In order for something to be logical, it need not be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," it simply need be logical. It is logical to say that your wife loves you even though no DNA sample or scientific evidence can…
1538.
Belief is dangerous and should be avoided
For
REBUTTAL The definition for belief that we discussed in the beginning was "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." At the outset of your argument you attempt to modify this definition by adding "ideas or experiences of life." I…
I apologize for my lack of structure. I agree with the definitions provided and accept the burden of proof. Before we proceed, I want to acknowledge my hypocrisy in that the title of the debate itself is a belief. A more appropriate title might look something like this: Belief…
Against
I will address my opponents rebuttal and conclude the debate. REBUTTAL Pro did not like the comment I made about meanings for belief and I agree that our original definition is the only valid one. I was making a statement about belief and provided a link for that statement.…
I would like to say I appreciate my opponents curtious nature but he usually can not change the resolution after the debate has been accepted. My opponent makes the correct assessment that his resolution is a belief in itself. Though since my opponent has been civil in this…
1539.
Love is omnipotent and omniscient
For
you are just arguing my case.. why do people choose to love
positive isnt necessarily good.. positive can seam good but dreams are as good as nightmares are real jesus is pure evil
Against
Love is not omnipotent or omniscient. He did not fulfill his burden. My farts smell like cinnabons.
Jesus is really cool.http://i2.kym-cdn.com...Lovesickness refers to an informal affliction that describes negative feelings associated with rejection, unrequited love or the absence of a loved one. It can manifest as physical as well as mental…
1540.
The omnipotence paradox is self-refuting
For
Introduction You will remember in my second round that I said my refutation cannot be defeated by virtue of its existing outside of all principles of logic. It seemed that CON had at least a working grasp of this point as he seemed to summarize the corpus of my argument in a…
I highlight this phrase for its irony, as this debate will be centered mostly about the irrelevancy of logic given the premises inherent in the omnipotence paradox. This will become more clear as we move forward. So let's begin. What is Omnipotence? There are a few different…
Against
Answers to questions:1. Yes.2. Because in doing so he loses his maximal omnipotence, as he cannot lift a stone he cannot lift.3. No, rather the semantic truism that a "lifted" rock is "liftable"4. Because the phrase "God can't" makes no sense if maximal omnipotence is…
This is going to be (again) short and sweet. For all of pro's detailed and erudite explanations, his argument is very simple and very false. I'm a little disappointed.Summary of the pro case1. The omnipotence paradox assumes God can do absolutely anything, even things we…
1541.
Omnipotence is not disproven by paradoxical questions
For
Once again, I agree with very much of what you are saying. This is some the reason I specifically stated that I would not use the argument that an omnipotent being is beyond logic. (Too easy, and just ends the argument. ) The point of my argument is that such a thing as a…
I am in agreement with pretty much everything you have stated. I tried to make this issue as pointed as I could for the reason that I've see many people cling to these statements as solid reasoning as to why omnipotence is impossible. This debate is specifically intended to…
Against
Your arguments are very imaginative and well argued. However, I still believe (for the purpose of this debate, anyway) that they are fallible, as the first two rely on the idea that we 'can not' conceptualise these ideas in our minds. This is certainly true for a human…
Omnipotence is a concept of the mind; a human invention, which could never exist in a physical, changing world. When this concept is trialled by logic, it's shown - in an albeit quite complicated way - that omnipotence doesn't truly work in a system of concepts either. There…
1542.
Human beings are fundamentally evil
For
Evil is very real and very tangible and as i have said in my previous argument, that if you are not doing good you are doing evil. A person who killed 6 million innocent jews for shits and giggles is most definitely evil. Con he raised the point that evil is a human construct…
I believe that majority of human beings are evil. Whether sub consciously or not we screw up the earth with fishing,pollution and other stuff, a lot of the times for profit. Given this i believe that because we are not actively seeking to do good we are doing evil. "There is no…
Against
"Evil is tangible. If you are not doing good then you are doing evil. This is evident as a well known individual said so." Pro makes a bare assertion that evil is tangible without explaining why this is the case. I will extend why evil is not tangible. Evil is simply an…
What is evil and what is not is entirely subjective. Even the most controversial human in existence, Adolf Hitler, is not seen as evil by every person on the planet. The very idea of evil is nothing more than a human construct. Evil does not truly exist, it isn't tangible.…
1543.
The paradox of the stone is invalid
For
Good luck.
A definition of God is not needed; also, God is assumed to exist for the purposes of this debate. It isn't a debate on whether or not God exists (regardless of how you define "God"), but whether or not the Paradox of the Stone proves that omnipotence is an illogical concept for…
Against
1) Please provide a definition for God, Paradox of the Stone, etc. 2) I will be arguing the Paradox of the Stone doesn't exist. 3) Best of lucks, Pro!
A definition of God is needed in order to advance into the actual part of the debate. Since we are arguing whether or not the Paradox of the Stone actually exists, we ACTUALLY need to understand who and what is God exactly. This would be like reading a last chapter of a book…
1544.
Freedom should take priority over equality
For
Okay deal, voters please don't voe.
Well then
Against
Let"s take an unusual tact from the obvious. Take it in a direction that a libertarian may like more. Unprovoked shooting a gun at someone is an example of restriction of freedom. I have freedom to a gun, I have freedom to shoot it, but the good men and woman of our country…
Freedom is an abstraction, a concept. Each may interpret what it means to be free, but few would argue that "freedom" in society does not includes equal access to opportunity. "All men are created equal" penned by Thomas Jefferson in the declaration of independence framed the…
1545.
Death should be feared rather than accepted
For
We can fear death itself because we dont know, not just how and when it will happen. But there is an uncertainty of what is after death.
How can I not fear death when the unknown is precisely what brings the anxiety. Developing and anxiety on what will happen to me. No one wants to let go of life in exchange for something not knowable.
Against
Referring again to Epicurus, he said "For that which while present causes no distress causes unnecessary pain when merely anticipated... Therefore, it is relevant neither to the living nor to the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist." Again I…
We fear objects and things we know have the potential to harm us or that pose a threat. Fear is an emotion we have to help us recognize danger. A fear of heights comes because we know that a drop from a high place can potentially be fatal. We cannot fear death because death can…
1546.
If the universe has a cause, it is a personal mind
For
Thanks to RT for the challenge and for the kind words. May the odds be ever in your favour!If we define the universe as all matter, energy, space, and time, then whatever the cause of the universe is, it must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.We all agree that abstract…
[This space intentionally left blank.]
Against
I would like to debate Philochristos on this subject as I feel he is one of the most skilled Theists on this site. In this debate we will assume that the universe began to exist, and has a cause. It will be Pro's job to show that this cause is a personal mind, and my job to…
-Introduction- I thank Philochristos for his thoughtful responses; I knew this debate would be interesting. In this round I am going to show why my opponent's three arguments still do not justify the resolution. -Response To My Opponent- Just to make things clear, I have never…
1547.
Honor is more important than morals
For
In my mind it is too pricy to not act quickly. If the people judge you as rash, cruel, and malevolent the s be it. You have acted quickly, and the price could have been much pricier if you had not acted quickly. I believe honor to still matter more than morals, and i believe it…
If one wishes to see how a situation turns out they are being intelligent but by the same token they are being weak. More wrong doings could be caused by the enemy if one beleives that they should wait to see how many die, or how the problem turns out. Every life comes with the…
Against
You appear to be assuming that a person who waits before taking action would not do what's right; this is not necessarily true, the person may take action and have more of a plan because s/he is more likely to know the situation well. Also, many people would agree that not…
You are assuming that the person is waiting until people die. This may not be the case and the person may wait until the person who chooses to kill others simply gives enough evidence that they would kill someone before acting. If someone was going by honour and decided to kill…
1548.
Two wrongs do not make a right
For
Once again, stabbing is neither right nor wrong. Self defense is right and assault is wrong. It is only in this sense that context matters. Once an action (in context) is wrong, it can never be made right with the addition of another wrong. Thus two wrongs do not make a right.…
It is nice to get the chance to examine a common proverb and see if it truly holds. I think, and will now show, that it does. IntroductionAs my opponent pointed out by his concern over semantics, the word "right" has many meanings. Given the context of the word's use in the…
Against
Thanks to my opponent for his prompt response. First of all let me make one thing clear, I said "It is widely accepted that it is wrong to stab people." This means that in most cases or often times, it is wrong to stab someone. Stabbing carries with it a negative connotation. I…
Two wrongs don't make a right. This phrase is commonly used to discourage revenge and retaliation, and to convey that one is just as bad as the person who first committed the wrong. However, I find this statement to not be true. For example: It is widely accepted that it is…
1549.
Materialism is the best path to happiness
For
Summer is a good vacation to take delight in materialistic activities.
I feel your pain. I just want summer to come by.
Against
Pass, agreed when it gets here I'll be willing to debate.
Pass, I just realized I don't have time. I wish it was summer, but it isn't sorry.
1550.
Belief can change people's lives
For
OK. So I guess we're talking about the science of beliefs. Answering those questions Why do people believe in God? Why do people do certain behaviors? Oh please. Do some research folks. Since this isn't a real debate, please, don't vote. This concludes this non legitimate debate.
Ha ha. This is more like a conversation than a debate. If you said what I said, pretty subtle there. But we'll take Muslims for example to add on to my idea. They want peace and will only declare war for self defense. But Osama bin Laden committed terrorism due to the fact that…
Against
Again you agree with me that beliefs govern our behaviors. Bin Laden belief was not only peace but also the right to defend his country and his religion. according to his beliefs, the military bases on Saudi Arabia represent threat to their peace. So, his beliefs resulted in…
so, your words say that you agree with me . I said that believes govern our lives.. I didn't only mention good effects of beliefs on our behaviors but also I mentioned bad effects saying "enhances or suppresses behaviors" . My illustrative example was about losing a dear person…

How to use these debate topics

Vote, discuss, revote. Poll the room on the motion, give 5 minutes of discussion, then vote again and look at who changed their mind.
Four corners. Label corners strongly agree → strongly disagree; people move, then each corner makes its best case.
Switch sides. Halfway through, everyone argues the side they disagree with. It sharpens listening.

Run them live

Want every person to answer on their own phone, with a timer and a live leaderboard? Use these questions in an EngageSlide Vote · Discuss · Revote — free to start.

Tick questions on any page — your set is kept while you browse (or take the first 10 here) — and they become ready-to-play slides. What is EngageSlide?

Philosophy Debate Topics — page 31

How to use these debate topics

Run them live

More question collections