Philosophy Debate Topics — page 34

For

• id say most experts would agree, even the one's who don't agree that miracles occur.... would say there's probably a physical reason behind the cures, most of them. placebo would have to almost by definition be a much smaller amount. also placebo and "your brain somehow causing…
• most cures are not mental related, but hard core physical healing. we may not be able to explain most of it, but placebo accounts for only a fractions of healings. the wiki links ae not fake. you can google the information provided in them to verify what they say, that the…

For

• Metz said, "Also this really doesn't say why Theism can actually account for universal morals. People disagree on religion. If Morals were universal then the scenario my opponent laid out wouldn't exist." I thought I made this clear in my opening statement: the God I am…
• Thanks for your response. Metz said, "Second the people/self being the judge is what I am arguing. The Ultimate judge is humanity." To say that humanity is the ultimate judge is not saying anything. For instance, in one part of the world it may be morally acceptable to murder…

For

• I read your debate on "whether or not atheism exists". I thought it was a horrible blow out, in your favor. :) That said, I disagree with your position of atheism as not a faith. Atheism may not be an organized religion, but it is definately a faith. Atheism is "1) the doctrine…
• Many atheists today claim that atheism is not a belief. There are many different arguments being used to defend this idea. This is a list of the main arguments I have come across. -It is not a belief system -It is not possible to not believe in a non-existent. -It is not a…

For

• Bostrom's Trilemma I will be arguing that we are most likely in an artificially created universe, and we'll be examining 3 possibilities. These possibilities summarized by Nick Bostrom in the following way; "A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous…
• Okay Tejretics chose these judges for the most part, I just agreed. I finally found time to put some effort and energy into debating. I'm sick of seeing the God debates and even sicker of seeing people who actually specialize in nothing but God debates. With that being said,…

For

• As the title suggests. If you want to accept just comment, and I'll go ahead and present my argument in the first round so we don't have to waste time with formalities. I really don't want to include definitions because I don't want this debate to be about meanings of words. We…
• Thanks again to con for a genuinely interesting response! Before I address con's points, let me make a brief closing statement. You'll recall that the resolution is "Reproduction is not a rational choice." I'd invite readers to keep in mind that I have not said or even implied…

For

• My argument may sound a bit harsh, but it's the truth that life without believe in god has no purpose at all. We would only have our temporarily life on earth. We would be born, eventually grow up, then work till retirement age and die. And whatever we had done in live which…
• Firstly let me just say that you are asking me the questions, I have already clearly explained in my last argument. I have already provided you with scientific knowledge from the Quran that wasn't know at the time it was revealed by Prophet Muhammad, plus Muhammad at the time…

For

• Morality I apologize for not specifying on which moral framework, but I wouldn't like to delve that deep into morality, because I would like to keep this argument economic rather than philosophical. Just the general consensus of morality would be great (basically having the…
• Why is success discouraged? If you increase taxes for richer citizens to help people with lower-income, you are essentially punishing hard-working, intelligent people. In regards to income-based welfare specifically, it is basically a bunch of people for other's food and…

For

• I've learned a lot. I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance This appearing and disappearing is so short that it is negligible. "However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity.…
• I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance Yes, but nothing happens without a cause. A door cannot open unless someone physically opens it or the wind blows it open. A ball will not roll down a hill unless someone pushes it. Also, a ball…

For

• If Con would prefer to devote the remainder of this debate to the "existence of God based on the creation of the universe" I have no objections. I will take this as my opponent's agreement with my BOP argument. I leave it to the reader how best to vote on this debate. Con, you…
• Con, you have made things more difficult for yourself than required. In this debate you need not actually prove the existence of God, but merely show why you should not be required to.You and I are speaking of a hypothetical debate in which you assert God exists. I, having…

For

• You are anchored in beliefs that do not allow you to submerge into your self and practical possibilities far beyond this scratch-n-sniff argument. You're definitely seeking individual freedom. But it will not come dressed as religion, with theories, over-embelished NON-points,…
• I will define atheism and show that it does not have an impact on an Atheist worldview. Let's start that Atheism it is NOT a system with teachings, promises, handouts, no manual, no assumptions, no conflicts with logic and science, no punishments, no PREACHING. It is the…

For

• Unfortunately this is my first debate on this site and attempted a edit but alas I was too late. Definition of Morality: principle and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors. First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of…
• The premise that atheist have no moral ground because they do not know Christ. I find this premise fallible, in so many ways. I in fact believe Atheist have a higher moral standing than those driven by Christianity. Round 1: What is morality? Round 2: Does this originate from…

For

• According to my opponent, there's nothing wrong with slanting a debate by pre-emptively introducing your own extensions of your opponent's argument. I would like my audience to understand the fallacy that lies behind attacking of a straw man. If my opponent cannot admit that…
• It is indeed my opponent's P1 that is in question. Unfortunately my opponent and I differ in one regard of his preliminary assessment. It is by no means a grand difference but it will be up to the audience to decide which of us presented the fairer epistemological…

For

• (A.1)My opponent suggests that "everyone is born an theist". He needs to define atheism if he wishes to be clear on this statement, and show as to how this is so. However, my opponent has made no arguments or responses to my first affirmative. My argument still stands and I…
• (A) Understanding What I Mean by the Resolution While I am not concerned withdefinitionsfor atheism here (see 1.1), I think a passing comment on the clarity of my positionin regards to atheismbeing an"untenable position"are in order. By 'untenable', I merely mean to say that…

For

• I have obviously won this debate because my opponent has failed to discredit my God. This is my opponent's argument: 1))) Apparently, my God is supposed to be the Christian God defined in the Bible. However, I CLEARLY stated that my God wasn't supported nor affiliated with any…
• My opponent continues to misunderstand my argument. He forgets that I'm not arguing for any specific faith, I'm just arguing for God as I defined. To refute his arguments: "anyway i you cannot claim god to be resposbonsible for the creation of this planet and everything else…

For

• Prospect of Success
• Right Intention

For

• Once again I thank Con for the inputs. [Pro: 'One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God'] [Con: This is clearly false. The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist. The first makes no claims about reality; the…
• Let me jot down some dictionary definitions for reference. Faith. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in…

For

• No argument will be posted here as agreed.
• I admit that I had not realized I needed to prove all premises true. I'm a little out of my element in formal debate, and some terms still elude me. That included the significance of the term "sound" in this context. I would argue that the KCA argument is inherently inductive…

For

• The reconstruction of my argument is not valid as its use of technical terminology is misplaced. For example, you say, in your reconstruction of P2 that: P2: If something is in the process of changing to state F, it is potentially state F, but not actually state F. However,…
• To begin, we start with an a posteriori argument, or an argument from experience. Arguments from experiences of the world to the existence of God are called cosmological arguments. This particular argument is the argument from motion. Argument from Motion: P1. Some things are…

For

• is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God 1) Morality does not come from god it comes…
• well it appears con is trolling and has yet to provide any proof

For

• Now on to my rebuttal and arguments. Contention 1: There must be a standard for morality. I agree with this statement. There must be, and there is, a standard for morality. Contention 2: God is the standard for morality. But I disagree that a belief in God is the standard.…
• I've set everything to the maximum (rounds, voting period, etc) as I am very interested in everyone's opinion. I have not specified an opponent, so anyone may join in. Now on to my argument. I am an atheist (as my profile will confirm). This argument (personally) stems from a…

For

• Once again, there is no discernable organization to my opponent's arguments so I am just going to organize them around a few points and address them. I will note that my opponent has refused to explain what God is and has rehashed old arguments without addressing any of the…
• My opponent has lost the opportunity to criticize my case, so I cannot defend against anything in this round. He will also have nothing to write in Round 4 as a result. He will still have the opportunity to defend his case in Round 3 if he doesn't forfeit again, but he has…

For

• T3h Burden Con drops that there must be 100% certainty to carry the resolution, and I argue further to state that a justified stance that God most likely does not exist is enough to carry strong atheism. A weak atheist is by definition also an agnostic, thus does not make a…
• "Soundness"Logical soundness only applies to arguments, given that the resolution is clearly not about logical soundness, and strong atheism is clearly not an argument, but a position (as stated in the resolution), applying the logical soundness definition to it is absurd.So a…

For

• In my closing argument, I will go to voters. He says I dropped his argument about observing God and his controlled experiment but that argument was not topical due to the fact that the resolution was "Is it possible to prove God's existence or not", paraphrased, of course. He…
• I will first attack his arguments against me then I will attack his case. He says by proving God, he will be 100% faithful in him. You will not actually believe in him because you know he's there. Thus, proving the supposed faith in him obsolete. "Now faith is the substance of…

For

• =====Counterarguments===== >>>Can't make oneself believe<<< At most, this point was to show the impracticality of Pascal's Wager, my second argument was intended to be the refutation. >>>Infinite possibilities<<< "Is the sum of the set of even integers equal to the sum of the…
• I'll admit...my opponent's argument is confusing. I hate math, and his argument definitely resembles it. Since I have no clue which direction my opponent is arguing, I will simply state every argument against Pascal's Wager and hope that one of these hit his argument. If I…

For

• LAWRENCE KRAUSS, DIRECTOR OF THE ORIGINS PROJECT AT ASU IN ARIZONA In the first places, current physical theories suggest that our universe is probably not unique. Well beyond our ability to directly probe, there may be an infinity of universes, with differing laws of physics,…
• "The definitions of my words are seen in the words themselves. They are defined in action thru example :)" Round 1 Examples: I know of Santa. I know of many things from books. As a matter of fact, without books or any kind of writings, we would have no understanding of a god.…

For

• Well, no. My definition of humanism does not contradict what I say, because you see, humans are animals just as much as the other animals which occupy this world. Also, even if that weren't the case, (Which, I don't know what we would be then.) animals are still an occupant of…
• I will begin by going over the definition of humanism and feminism. Humanism: An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize…

For

• You may take it from any viewpoint you like. Right and wrong are subjective concepts. There are things today that we may consider ultimately right and ultimately wrong. Rape is ultimately wrong but at one point in time culturally speaking it was an over-looked offence.…
• The only thing that exists as right and wrong are the definitions, actions and behaviors that we have categorized this way. Ultimately every problem that exists in the world is man made and everything that we experience is judged by man made standards whick are subject to…

For

• My opponent said."It may be conceivable for one to hold a belief with no knowledge (agnostic theist), or to have knowledge and yet not believe (Gnostic atheist), but it is obvious that they are not mutually exclusive; they almost imply one another."OK, so what about an agnostic…
• Atheist; One that lacks a belief in godAgnostic: One that lacks knowledge of a god's existence.Many people think an Agnostic is the same as being an Atheist. There is a difference and they are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, be an Agnostic Atheist.You can also be an…

For

• The Con's last line of defense lies in a universal exception, no pun intended. It is possible to reach the speed of light, given enough power. There is a popular theory circulating amongst scientists and philosophers that universe might well be a computer simulation. The theory…
• While I dislike nitpicking semantics, I will argue that yes, every end is the product of at least two people.In order for one to be stuck in the wilderness, it means that one has to exist. For one to exists neccessitates that at least two people worked together, and in doing so…

For

• well, as with any anaology there are limitations to them. my magician analogy is imperfect for the reasons you describe, and your anaology of previous humans believing God caused inexplicable phenomenon is imperfect for the reasons i described. you argue that we don't have all…
• you ask about which laws of nature are broken. i argued that thermodyamics was, and i argued something causing existence was we know, is a violation of what we see.... namely, the apparent something from nothing situation. con talks about what various descriptors of the God…

For

• My goal in this debate is to demonstrate that the Kalam cosmological argument is sound. My OP will be a very general outline and defense of the KCA, and I will leave it to my opponent to deliver and develop his specific criticisms in his OP before I go in depth, lest I attack…
• Con's argument seems to been reduced down to semantics (Which God?), I take this to due to the strength and plausibility of the KCA and hence I strongly encourage a vote for Pro. Throughout the duration of this argument, Con has, for the most part, almost completely ignored all…

For

• Thanks for responding! I will post part of your argument and than rebut it. "First we will define theisms god. For theists god is a timeless, personal, supernatural entity, an immaterial consciousness, is the causal creator of the universe, is free to act intentionally, is…
• Thanks for accepting! I will start this off by showing why the other positions are illogical, then show why Agnostic-Atheism is logical. Gnostic-Theism This is the position that God exists, or they are 100% positive he does. This is impossible because you can't prove a God…

For

• BOP:Here I don't think my opponent understood my point at all. He cannot merely assert that absent any evidence for the impossibility of OMV without God, we should assume that it is possible. This is flawed logic. Harry Gensler furthers:"When we criticize an opponent's…
• Observation:(1) This is not a debate about how one comes to know why something is right or wrong (epistemology). This is a debate about the foundations on which objective moral values rely (moral ontology). Thus, it must be understood that one does not need to believe in God in…

For

• To begin the debate, it would be useful to define the term "logical error." A logical error is either a... (1) Logical fallacy"All atheists are indoctrinated." [Generalization fallacy](2) Invalid deductive argument" P1: Square X is colored red. P2: Square Y is colored blue.…
• I take the position that "The God Delusion" has embarrassing logical errors. By embarrassing, I mean that they are embarrassing to the the author and his presumed approach, given that Darwkins takes a rational stance against religious dogma and falsehoods. That being said, I'm…

For

• Before I present my pentultimate argument, I'd like to share an observation I've made. Most of your rebuttals seem to consist of an attack on my personal knowledge, and not much else. My personal knowledge is not a relevant issue to this topic, so these attacks are ad hominems.…
• 1. "This is an argument from incredulity fallacy."Arguments from incredulity take the form:P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."[1]"Here, you…

For

• Your life comes down to a series of yes's and no's. Humans try to maximize our individual lives but making the right choices of yes's and no's. This could be represented by a binary number of 0's and 1's for an individual's life. And all the lives of all the people on Earth…
• This is not really a debate. It is just a fun way of seeing how you view life. I will make my statement of life in the second round. Round 1 should be only an acceptance otherwise you won't hav much to say round 2. The voters can do a few things1. Which side they most agree…

For

• The epistemic claims of theism are that one or more deity exists, and that the deity controls some part of the world. Since these are both epistemic claims, they must be backed by empirical evidence. However, since they are unfalsifiable hypotheses, they can never be proven…
• Con argues that the Burden of Proof does not apply to the existence of a deity. On the contrary, Burden of Proof does apply, as it applies to all epistemic claims. It is illogical to believe in anything without evidence.Therefore, it falls to me to give evidence that Theism is…

For

• "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'" - Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (http://izquotes.com...)I thank my opponent for this…
• "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so...The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this…

For

• Reviewing Con's arguments and rebuttals to my arguments, we can say that he is not very reluctant in his distribution of straw man fallacies. However, anyone with an appropriate knowledge of the Ontological Argument (Anselm's Proslogion, Kant's Criticism, Negative Existentials,…
• The Ontological Argument and Kant (1.1)My opponent pointed out that "God is defined as the greatest conceivable thing, and God can't be great unless it exists. " Furthermore commenting that "Kant pointed out the problem with this. " However, various philosophers have written…

For

• My opponent gave up.
• Strong AtheismCon says my quote from Anthony Flew was a misquote and false. He never defended that position and left it as a bare-assertion, so we have no reason to believe him. Either way, it is an outrageous charge because that it was Strong Atheism is; he position, view, or…

For

• My opening argument is that it is both morally wrong and simply false to define people as evil. My first point is that, for a person to be evil, everything they do and think must be a product of that evil. And while this would seem to work in some cases, holes in the logic of…
• This is a debate arguing that people, while they do evil things, are not simply "evil". Round 1 is introductions/definitions. Rounds 2,3&4 are arguments. Round 5 is closing arguments. Evil: morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked http://dictionary.reference.com...

For

• My argument about defrocking priests comes in part from the broad rejection of Liberation philosophy by the Church and the current Pope in particular. here's a bit from Wikipedia on the subject In March 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger made "ten observations" on aspects of…
• I find your views on history and morality interesting. I am a bit confused because you seemed to have actually made my point. Since you chose to oppose my proposition I am in a bit of confused as to what you are exactly you are opposing. I will restate my opinion and see if we…

For

• I'll allow (influential empiricist) David Hume to provide support for the existence of religions:http://oll.libertyfund.org...I think I may not have been clear enough for my opponent regarding the amount of evidence of extraterrestrials and deities; as with god (as I'd…
• I appreciate you trying to add some body to your proposition, however I am still guessing as to which god, religion or faith you are referring to. I assumed in accepting this debate and the regulations you proposed for it that you would either have a strong position against…

For

• Read my Round-1 argument. I established there that the science does not currently acknowledge the existence of a soul; if you wish to introduce one, you will need to provide strong evidence for it first. Without a soul, there is no reason to believe that we will continue to…
• I don't see what the birth of a 1st-century Palestinian Jew has to do with the nature of life. Besides which, we can't place history (or alleged history), which is ultimately just hearsay, above biology, which has reproducible experimental evidence, in reliability. It would be…

For

• The One Who Searched for Truth. (Decided to only do one) Here we have Bob, the Pharmacologist. Bob has been trying to formulate the truth serum perfume. It seems to relax mice and merely make them experience a near-sleep state of mind. However when applied to chimps he noticed…
• The task of pro, here, is to propose up to and including whatever number of scenarios they can fit in 8,000 characters.Each scenario will be presented as the explanation of a dire situation of one or more individuals whereby at least one person per scenario will be asserted by…

For

• The only payoff from God that anybody gets is death for our sins. That is the only payoff we have earned, and we can't earn anything better. There is no way for anybody to win in Pascal's Wager. You either have eternal life now and heaven is your home or you have eternal death…
• The wager cannot be won by an atheist because an atheist believes there is no God to pay off on the wager. Pascal's Wager requires the belief that God is there of that He may be there. Atheists believe there is no God. Atheists cannot play the wager and remain atheists, and…

For

• Just for the sake of clarity I'm going to respond to your argument on a line-by-line basis. "I believe that promoting a culture where people are as informed about life and the universe as possible is critical to our evolution as a species and the growth of our collective…
• It is my contention that human beings should not be allowed to exercise the right to absolute "freedom of belief", contrary to the popular opinions of most individuals. Indeed I would instead assert that there are certain beliefs within the spectrum of possibility that - as…

For

• It's fine,your excuse is valid. "every person on earth (Besides those with sensory or mental disabilities) can share the same set of observations about the world that rise through individual perceptions." To a certain point.Other then that,words can't describe your full state…
• Con has either not been on DDO to respond to my side of the argument which is fine. Or he's just waiting for the last round to answer so he could have the last say metaphorically speaking. That would make him cowardly. On the other hand he might of just given up.

For

• Apologies for forfeiting the 4th round. I have work and school to contend with. As far as Con's answers to my questions, he gave the following answers 1. It is completely objective 2. It actually works Morals are completely objective as well. Or they should be. You don't have…
• I gotta hand it to Con, he sure blindsided me. I thought he was going to talk about how it was scientifically impossible for God to exist. Instead he talked about God's interactions with reality. However, he has failed to answer my questions I posed in the first round during my…

For

• If it is not the people themselves who define good and evil who is it, god? And if so why is it god? God is the one who decides because he is the one with the power to decide. Power need no evidence or justification it simply is because nothing can overcome it. >>"This is also…
• My opponent says that "morality is authority-independent," he uses the example "even God cannot make it the case the wanton murder is morally acceptable. " If this is true then why were the crusades justified in the eyes of those alive at the time? Morality is a concept seeded…