Philosophy Debate Topics — page 37

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 37 of 46

1801.
Matter may be eternal, so God did not create everything
For
sun+moon=Earth earth=life all natural change is chaos, but my source is sun :)
matter has no beginning, everything always existed, therefore it was not created
Against
So earth created life?
Does matter include animals and if so how did animals become?
1802.
Gnostic atheism is more logical than agnostic atheism
For
As both of us are atheists, PRO apparently of the position tat the proper answer to the question of "god(s)?" is "no.", and myself certainly of the position of "that's a stupid question." there may be something here to discuss. I am myself a gnostic atheist on all propositions…
So you admit that we have both forwarded good reasons for the views we inended to espouse through this entire debate. I can only see that this would be good grouds for a tie on the convincingness of our arguments, and as you yourself have said, LD, you forfeit the conduct…
Against
An agnostic atheist is one who accepts God to be possible but doesn't believe in, or doubts, God's existence due to lack of evidence.A gnostic theist asserts there to be no god based on whatever reasoning they happen to use.Justify this please.
Up to you to take it.Definitions, within reason, are up to you.
1803.
Morality without God is possible
For
My opponent was unable to post her last round in time. However, she has made her case in the comments section. I accept this as legitimate. For ease of access, I will post what she said here: ===Con's Argument=== I tried to reply to your claims sentence by sentence, but they…
"The main point here is not whether there is God or not, the main point is whether we believe in Him or not." Whether there can logically be a God or not has a great deal to do with it. If believing in him is unreasonable and our moral system is based off our belief in him than…
Against
"1. I have already stated that the definition of reason includes that we realize what it is we do and do not know and except them as such, for what the are. 2. I also stated that the concept of faith is in contradiction to that. Faith being the acceptance of things as true…
And welcome her to her first debate. " Thanks, it's my pleasure; And now, onto my argument… "You forget that there may not even be a God at all. If this is the case than our only foundation for our morals would be ourselves and society anyway, with no consequence on whether we…
1804.
Moralists delight in cruelty committed with a clear conscience
For
Hello and good luck to you! I believe I will be arguing that this is not true so I should actually be the con side. A few things about your opening statement. 1. Bertrand Russel is an atheist who has no direct exposure to Christianity- without a primary observation, Russel is…
The end
Against
[T]he infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell." This is a quote written by Bertrand Russell. While it is true that due to the advent of hell, crime must have been reduced but Hell, as we currently understand it, is…
I'm giving up ~~~ not you ~40; ~40;
1805.
The ontological argument succeeds in establishing God's existence
For
OK, so now my opponent's rebuttals are these: 1) My arguments only prove the notion of God 2) The same thing could be applied to the flying spaghetti monster 3) My argument presupposes God First, let me say that if a notion about existence is true, then it follows that it…
First, sorry for writing "objects" and not "objections." Second, I'd like to thank my opponent for his excellent quick rebuttal. My opponent's two contentions may be summarized as follows: 1. Existence may not be necessary of something that is perfect 2. Only proves IF…
Against
I am going to agree that IF something is perfect then it actually exists so I can draw attention to what I consider the real substance of the argument. Pro says "The only question is whether this perfection is real or imagined. However, as my argument shows, it is impossible to…
Seeing that their argument is short and too the point, I will make my objection short and too the point. Pro says. .. . "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" P1 claims that existence is necessary of something that is perfect. Even if this is granted, this in no way…
1806.
If God created the universe, monistic idealism is probably true
For
God will be defined as the grand-mind which is the cause and creator of all things that are not God (such as the universe). Monistic Idealism is simply the view that only mentality exists, and that there is no such thing as something "outside of mind". The conventional theistic…
IntroductionI apologize for forfeiting a round, I got really busy and didn't have time unfortunately. Either way, I hope I will be able to get a point across and win the argument.Idealism:"In philosophy, Idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or…
Against
I will accept this argument. I'm not fully familiar with this philosophy so I will take this as an opportunity to learn and discuss! Thanks for the debate! I will be arguing that Monistic Idealism does not follow logically as the only result of God's creation of the world. In…
Since Pro has forfeited the last round, my arguments have not been refuted. On these grounds alone, as I have demonstrated why Pro's description of the universe is not the most likely scenario, and thus are not "probably true", the resolution is negated. However, I see it as…
1807.
The existence of evil proves God must exist
For
I apologize for my minimal response. I was traveling and ran out of time to reply. I had 10 seconds to post a response, but I will reply to my opponent with much greater detail this round. Reply to #1 "How does [my opponent] know that 'nearly every person believes that stealing…
I don't see how you have proven or disproved any of the premises in my argument, therefore I have little to say.
Against
REBUTTALS:"The non-Christian German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, gives proof for this point in this article"This is an appeal to authority fallacy[1]. Pro just claims Immanuel Kant is right without any explanation. Immanuel Kant does not list the belief in evil in every society.…
My opponent has no substantiated premise. It seems like he has given up, Vote Con. I will spend this round killing all of his arguments that were based on nothing. Please enjoy. #1. "That is true. The opinion of whether something is right or wrong varies from person to person,…
1808.
God's existence is logically impossible
For
I affirm the position that it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist. Contention One: Cause The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing. [1][2] This of course…
Sorry about that. You still haven't proved that God's existence is not intrinsically impossible.
Against
What you do not realize is that you instigated the debate. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Either I concede that I lose the debate, or I continously refute your arguments. Also: "you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments"
Grammatical Error(s): We're is a contraction of we are. Were is second person singular past, plural past, and past subjunctive of be. So therefore, judging from your sentence, we're is more appropriate for use. Also, you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments. So…
1809.
It is better never to have been born
For
Thanks, Con. P1: The context – A brief history Counter-arguments addressed under A1. P2: Discomfort is bad Arguments not enough to affirm premise My opponent's claim of 'I never showed discomfort as bad' is flatly false. Under the subheading of 'Discomfort is bad', I…
Thank you, Con. This round, I will be furthering or solidifying my arguments. I will not be dealing with every counter-argument Con makes this round, due to word limits. Resolution interpretation: Firstly, I apologise for making the resolution unclear. Although it was implied,…
Against
Thanks Pro. I. Preface Fortunately, Pro has wasted much of her last round, so I will add a few more arguments to the mix. First I will deal with rebuttals, beginning with the easy stuff. II. Irrelevant Arguments Overpopulation: Pro made two contentions completely irrelevant to…
Thanks Pro. I. Preface I am going to stick with the interpretation that it is better that we, humans, have never been born. It seems to be the most obvious interpretation of the vague resolution and Pro's arguments. I am somewhat surprised by Pro's opening arguments, as there…
1810.
Atheism is more rational than theism
For
No, you may not post rebuttals R5. I never can reply. I find it cowardly.Here is my opening:Rational [thought]. 1. The quality or condition of being rational. 2. A rational belief or practice. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Rational. 1. Having or exercising the ability to…
Round 1 Con makes his/her first arguments and accepts the rules I laid out.Round 2 Clash.Round 3 Clash and Con's closing thoughts.Round 4 My closing thoughts. Con only posts this: "No arguments here, as accepted."Theism is :"...belief in the existence of one God viewed as the…
Against
I would also like to mention that I requested a final round to rebuttal Pro, seeing as it is Pro's burden of proof to establish the resolution true, I have been accused of cowardice for this request, and nothing could be further from the truth. Anyhow I will continue and see…
I accept. My Position as stated below is, It is not my duty to prove that theism is more reasonable than atheism, but my opponents burden to prove that atheism is more reasonable than theism, my duty is to rebuttal all the arguments put forward by my opponent and give reasons…
1811.
The concept of God is illogical
For
Standard theology. . . . . . Want. What I said in the previous Round that still holds up: By God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. Since God is all-knowing God knew Hitler would not be…
Thanks for your interest in this debate topic. It is a very interesting topic. Don't worry about it. Thought about logical flaws in God and made a debate. On Omniscience: I agree, God is all-knowing, God wants everyone to choose life, And God gives everyone free will. You argue…
Against
"God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. " If free will exists, It would be better to say 'some will not choose to be saved'. But, Otherwise, Yes, You are correct, That is the…
You say: "God has allowed humans to not be capable of saving. " Standard theology states everyone can have eternal life, If they want. The 'eternal life' option was open to Hitler and Stalin, Though they obviously chose death and destruction rather than life. You say: "Parents…
1812.
Inferring the existence of God is reasonable
For
sdf
to us it's a mystery. that anything exists is amazing. but i just gave a bunch of arguments. id expect a little more from con.
Against
just kidding i completly believe in god i thought you might know more information than i do
how is god real? it makes no sense I mean how did he create the earth and all its people?
1813.
Believing in God without requiring proof is noble
For
Why are so many religious people so bent on trying to prove there is a god? Believers are sacrificing nothing if they have to secure proof of God before they are willing to believe. If one believes he has solid proof of God's existence, he has avoided suspending his reasoning…
"im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble" I only said one need not "require proof" of God to be noble in his belief. I have nothing against those who ask questions or look for supporting evidence to back their religious views. But these people too may…
Against
I will resubmit: it is not, in itself, noble to follow illogical assumptions. Those who search, find no evidence, but still believe in something are a dangerious entity. I say this because its spreading the idea that logic doesnt have to play a role in importnat decissions…
Youre twisting my words and missing the point. I am not saying you cannot be noble if you base youre beliefs on faith, im only saying the act on not asking for proof itself is not noble. secondly, you assume that there is no way to prove the existence of god. i have heard many…
1814.
Theism offers a more likely basis than atheism for moral realism
For
A preliminary point that is important: I can't but help but note Con's highly questionable strategy here that's been deployed all throughout this debate; in multiple instances Con appeals to other possible versions of atheistic moral realism(s) - often times with just a quick…
Atheism and Moral Realism1) Con seems to suggest that I am arguing that atheism and moral realism are incompatible. However, I am not. I entirely agree that atheism and moral realism are compatible if one means "logically compatible". One can entirely agree that two…
Against
AveLet's look over the debate and see if we can make any conclusions. I intend for this round to serve as a justification for a Con vote rather than a point-by-point rebuttal to Pro's last round, even though I'll touch on some new points he brought up.When one makes an argument…
Ave (Apologies in advance for going out of order.) Atheism and moral realismThe whole purpose of mentioning the status of atheistic moral realism in philosophy was a direct response to his negative descriptions ("extremely hard to see", "dire", and so on). It's hard to describe…
1815.
Atheism is best understood as disbelief
For
belief=theism=yes position disbelief=atheism=no position belief=belief
an agnostic can still guess you seam to be missing the obvius here, no one but me knows how many fingers im showing behind my back belief in science is theism, science is the religion of mechanical technology.. muslims disbelieve christianity, and christianins disbelieve islam
Against
Belief in God = theism Believe in science = atheism Atheism is just a belief in a different thing to theism
Theism - 'belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe' - the dictionary. Theism is the belief in God(s). Not science. The vast majority of atheists also believe in science - science can not be proven, so it is belief - but…
1816.
Occam's razor argues against the existence of God
For
Before I begin allow me to clarify two things:The theory of God as indicated by the resolution is simply a belief regarding the existence of God along with whatever justification is presented in support of that belief.Con uses an example of someone attempting to use Occam's…
End Debate.
Against
I apologize for the late reply, I was, as it were, disheartened with the way this debate is heading. You see it seems that my opponent did not fully read the definitions that were presented. You see he made the same mistake for which I made this debate in the first place.…
Greetings! I have seen that in many debates the argument of Occam's Razor is used to debunk the concept of God. It is argued that because the belief that God does not exists is less complex, we must reach the conclusion that God does not exist. For this debate we will assume…
1817.
Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive
For
"Where, I ask my opponent, does it say anything about believing in a deity? The only belief involved in agnosticism is pertaining to the truth values of certain claims. " Right, but it also involves the existence of God as well. Remember I posted the definition of Agnosticism…
Now my opponent is right, that this debate will encompass semantics, so I hope that the audience of voters can bear with us for it might be confusing. However, I think this debate will be short since it is just a matter of semantics. Resolution: One can't be an agnostic and…
Against
Thanks to Pro for finishing his side of the debate. I'm going to follow suit! However, I must warn the audience, to help bar any further misunderstanding, I am going to be very blunt. This isn't an attempt to insult Pro, just removing the padding of what I might normally do, as…
Many thanks to Pro for his opening arguments. Allow me to respond below:Essentially, my opponent is arguing that the definitions contradict each other, so it is illogical to claim to be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. I will run through his post and break it down…
1818.
The problem of evil disproves an all-loving, all-powerful God
For
1. Con seems to introduce another point here. He claims that no one knows God's true limitations, and that we can't know what God's plan is for the big picture. This line of argument seems very similar to the 'God works in mysterious ways' argument. I have earlier argued that…
Con begins by claiming that natural evil, specifically natural disasters, are not a problem for God because, "Natural Disasters can create new life, take an earthquake for example; Plate tetonics move wihin the earth on fault lines causing the earth to shift forming new natural…
Against
1. I would like to quote pros point; "This line of argument seems very similar to the 'God works in mysterious ways' argument. I have earlier argued that we can prove that God can't have a bigger picture in mind through the process of elimination." I cede with the fact that we…
To the Pro, and the readers, I apologize if it is hard to follow which of Pros points I am debating. I was running out of room & needed to down size. Pro for your rebuttal please label paragraphs so we don't have to recite/quote entire lines. Thank you. I admit that Pro holds a…
1819.
The laws of physics make God's existence necessary
For
To answer your multiverse theory, under your definition of the laws of physics the laws must be "supported by a general consensus of reputable physicists worldwide". How many physicists support your theory? There is a much larger chance that we are(the universe) is alone, even…
I accept your definitions, though I wish you had given me some points to refute. Now to my case, as stated previously the second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of disorder is increasing, therefore it is impossible for a god not tto exist, look at it this way: the…
Against
Okay, so right on to refutations. I apologize in advance, my arguments will be inherently odd, as they will deal with theoretical physics. The second law of thermodynamics, that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,…
Hopefully, the way in which this debate unfolds will allow for insight and growth for both of us. I accept my opponent's definition of [a] God as, "some [any] being or deity outside the laws of physics [with no specific law being presented in the definition]. I would like to…
1820.
Morality is an illusion with no objective basis
For
"The problem with your thinking is not something that can be overcome with logic. You have completely discredited the human mind in all perceptions, and therefore your argument is simply too abstract to be debated." Listen, if you do not like the nature of the debate to which…
Hello, I would like to start off by telling you that you're interpretation of my argument is correct: No better, no worse, mere existence. You obviously do not understand determinism at all, I can see. Everything is cause and effect. This is a fact: there are chemical processes…
Against
Harlan, I would like to start by saying that I am not attacking you personally, I have not said that YOU were an idiot, or YOU are ridiculous. I am however, attacking the notions that you have set forth, and you should expect tour views to come under scrutiny. I did question…
Harlan, The problem with your thinking is not something that can be overcome with logic. You have completely discredited the human mind in all perceptions, and therefore your argument is simply too abstract to be debated. First, you have absolutely no true evidence that there…
1821.
There is no convincing proof that God exists
For
If you are to induct logic, God does not exist as far as we know. He only exists in faith, the creation of the mind of an individual. By "God", I am referring to the Christian God.Where is proof that God exists? There is no physical evidence of his existence. Here are the only…
"God's Design"I must ask you, how does science and how lucky we are to have life on Earth have anything to do with God? Just because we cannot comprehend how lucky we are and how this world came to be does not mean that God has to have created us.You are attempting to use…
Against
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's…
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us. Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves…
1822.
Atheism is a rational worldview
For
I will argue that it is more than possible for a universe without a god to exist, and also I will argue that a universe with a god is impossible. 1st round must be acceptance only, but other than that there are no rules.
I believe that it is literally impossible for a god to exist. I have multiple reasons, but I do not want to ramble, so I will present you with 2 of them. # 1: A universe emerging from nothing is a thousand times more likely to originate on its own rather than a higher power to…
Against
Not seeing how it can be "more than possible", which would be odds of greater than 50 percent in favor, that a universe can exist by chance, and not seeing how a limited human can assert that it is not possible for God to exist, I accept this challenge.
I hope Sam is ok.
1823.
Atheism is incompatible with philosophical reasoning
For
In Round 2, I presented this: Science has opened the way for the "possible" existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics. A book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum…
My original argument is only centered on Theism. It means that I am not yet endorsing any particular god/gods yet. In Round 2, I referenced the definition of deity in monotheistic religions.Therefore, Con is assuming the "Christian God" in my debate when in fact it could be…
Against
Ok well my opponents last rebutttl was so riddled with flawed assumption and double standards this is going to take me some, time to debunk and point out them all. I'm going to attempt to go thru my opponents argument and point them out one by one. Pro"s flawed argument My…
Lol I didn't know I signed up to debate Google and wiki... XD I would also like to point out I never claimed organic matter came from inorganic matter. I simply pointed out how quantum partials come from nothing which has been proven and debunks ur claim of everything needing a…
1824.
The existence of a god is logically certain
For
As this is the final round I'll go line by line. First, he says, "Time. My opponent states that time must have had a beginning and before time nothing else could have existed. What my opponent perhaps doesn't realize is the fact that time in itself does not exist. Time is in…
First, thanks to Yraelz for accepting. Now, onto the debate. I will just refute my opponent's qualms with my premises. His attack on Premise One: "My opponent states that logically everything must have a beginning. This conclusion is flawed as this would indeed prove that there…
Against
Alright, I will also be going line by line. 1. Time. My opponent states that time is simply the measure of change, he says that this is a logical certainty because before this there was nothing. So let me point out the circular reasoning here. My opponent is arguing that…
Won't it be nice when we can simply transcribe our thoughts into written essays? Forget the hours taken of writing, forget the messy typos. Some day soon.... Anyways, time to examine each attack my opponent has made. Premise one: Time. My opponent states that time must have had…
1825.
Morality rests on reason rather than atheism or theism
For
put it in contekst, can be able to reason, or is able to reason moral is logical, immoral is illogical selfish=sell fish what argument about other moralities? resonable=having my eyes open in order to read these words unresonable=closing them to read you lack of intelligence is…
you are either able to reason or not, can be is not what immorality is unresonAble does the joker have the choice to, lets say, settle? like a normal family man, not doing any crimes, having a normal life.. btw the joker is as real as bugs bunny how can you be moral if you cant…
Against
Thank you for that response. Moving to more arguments. My opponent argues that can be is not and what. I would like to counter that can be is and that. My opponent also argues that the Joker is no more real than Bug's Bunny. This may be true, however, that does not mean that my…
My first point:I can able to reason, but that doesn't mean I always make the right choices. I can even able reason without atheism or theism. That proves nothing. Able reason is not reason atheists, but able reason is not theists either. Let me math that for you. Able reason…
1826.
Everything can be explained without God
For
"Why did I come here through evolution " Mutations and natural selection. Both of which have been observed in the case of sickle cell anemia. The sickle cell blood cell mutation gave them a survival advantage over those with round-shaped red blood cells because sickle cell…
"Wikipedia, last visited Jul. 16, 2017." Not the most reliable source "my current life situation" Well you came here by a process called evolution from primates. Basically a common ancestor between us and other primates evolved into different species and we most likely evolved…
Against
I clarify that the Wikipedia entry I referred to may lack the claim that "[e]very true proposition can be explained, in at least the sense of 'logically deduced,' by the philosophical theory of everything, the set of all and only true propositions." I made the referral because…
Only God can fully explain everything. But God and the universe seem to be the same thing.Every true proposition materially implies every true proposition. Thus, everything in the universe causes everything in the universe. Every true proposition can be explained, in at least…
1827.
Moral values and duties cannot be objective if atheism is true
For
Just as I feared; I was hoping that you weren't... [Cue disappointment music] lol. No shame in being influenced by Craig and Plantinga! I'll just say I feel similarly about Sam Harris, and we'll call it even :) This is why I was deliberate in pointing out... Sure, as I said I'm…
Hi Philosurfer! Thanks for accepting, and for your thoughtful notes. On Atheism: Discussing the definition of atheism might be a fun discussion in its own right - I also hope it does not sidetrack us. I am aware of the diversity of definitions for atheism, but I chose this…
Against
Fair enough.The amended motion: "Moral Values and Duties Cannot be Objective if God Does Not Exist," is acceptable. Just as I feared; I was hoping that you weren't proposing a classic William Lane Craig - Christian Apologetic kind of argument! This is why I was deliberate in…
Thank you for initiating this wonderful debate on the topic! I'm very interested in your position on the motion you have put forward!I accept this debate with the hope that the ideas we share will benefit us both! This should be a great conversation!Definition of Atheism:Not…
1828.
The argument against a Christian God's existence is sound
For
My opponent forfeited, there is nothing to be refuted. Thanks for this debate,M.
Hello, Sorry for the late reply, I've been very busy as of lately and did not have enough time to reply to this debate. --------------------------------------------------------------- I think you are misunderstanding something that is very crucial. The argument is, "Dead" Gods…
Against
Kreimann argument, roughly paraphrased: Gods in the past were worshiped with as much fervor and belief as the modern Judaic god, but are now dismissed by the general population as myths. Therefore, the Judaic god can be dismissed as a myth as well. This argument is fallacious…
Kreimann argument, roughly paraphrased: Gods in the past were worshiped with as much fervor and belief as the modern Judaic god, but are now dismissed as myths. Therefore, the Judaic god is a myth as well. I will be arguing that this argument is unsound and will take up this…
1829.
Agnosticism is the default non-religious position
For
belief is theism agnostic is simple the acceptance that you dont know. what is your neighbour doing right now? you are not talking about agnosticism, but a religion that pretends it has something to do with anything
agnostic is non belief, non religious
Against
agnostic. n. 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. The keyword here is "believes". Contrary to what you are claiming,…
As much as I would like to correct your poor grammar and lack of coherence, that is not the subject of the debate. From what I understand, you are arguing that agnosticism is the default religious stance taken by any individual at the beginning of life (childhood). I think many…
1830.
Advances in intelligence inevitably lead to greater evil
For
1) The Con blindly claims that I acknowledge no evidence to my theory, but fails to investigate the means by which the advancement of evil through acquired intelligence can be proven (on which I will shortly expand) 1a) It need not be proven that Humans are Inherently Evil,…
1) A statistical increase in violence and hostility through the ages is far to broad and can never be obtained, especially because often the frequency of violence and hostility posesses an inverse correlation with its seriousness and severity. Rather, as pointed out by the Con,…
Against
Happy reading :) --> Pro's first point exclaims that there are "ideas" which show that humans are becoming more evil. However, note that Pro has failed to cite any SOURCES claiming that this is the case. She has simply integrated this as her OPINION. Thus we should not…
I don't have much character space so let's get right down to it :) 1) Pro acknowledges that there is no evidence which proves her claim that humankind has become more violent over time. In that case, we must ignore her resolution which states that with the development of…
1831.
Humanity would be better off without future generations
For
I will hand it to my opponent, he/she has done their research. The survival of the fittest is indeed a factor but people dont need to inflict pain and suffering on others to add to a bank that is already full. I can justify someone hunting local wildlife to provide food for…
What is your premise on these believes? Please provide information as I would greatly like to hear why you don't agree. Humans are torturing and mutilating their own kind and other species for what? What could possibly possess a human to wake up in the morning and go " Gee, Im…
Against
Humanity clearly does not need to die out....I will start by refuting my opponent's arguments which will include my own arguments..."The human race has been pillaging and raping the world for its natural resources and native inhabitants (animals) for thousands pf years and i…
I accept, and believe that the Human race does not need to "seriously ... die out"
1832.
Agnosticism is a more defensible position than atheism
For
You know, I said I wasn't going to reply to a post..but seeing as how you cheated death and all, I figured I would give it a shot. I am sort of amazed at how you so matter of factly put God in a nice little box called your definition. How you so conveniently try to frame God in…
That's really annoying Vi Veri. Im not going to even bother responding if you do eventual post an argument. On to the next debate...
Against
Here is why your entire argument doesn't matter, attrition. A. You are giving god a definition yourself. I will then have to disprove "your" god or in other words a Spinoza god. B. If you dont give something a proper definition, it can not be "proven" or "disproven" or even…
All an atheist has to do is prove that god is not necessary for the universe to exist in order to prove he doesn't exist. If you can prove god mathematically wrong, logically wrong, or scientifically un-necessary, he doesn't need to exist. First to be able to do so, we must…
1833.
Atheism is a more rational position than theism
For
if it is given then why is there a hell? If we, "sin;" why do we have to suffer in the afterlife for eternity when (if he loved us) he could forgive us so we may enjoy the afterlife for eternity?
The God of which I am taking about is just the idea of god in general as interpreted in the Christian religion. If there were a god, why would he let us up into the cosmos which is also known as the heavens? I thought we had to "earn" that...
Against
Since you have defined God as the deity of the Christian religion, it is only reasonable to study Jesus in order to understand God. God dwelling within heaven doesn't correlate with his existence. God and Jesus dwell within heaven, Jesus descended, and gave us salvation through…
I object to Pro's definition of Atheism. Atheism according to Wikipedia is defined as "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Whether or not you want to use reason and logic to understand truth is entirely up to the individual. I will clarify what it means to…
1834.
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes
For
Conundrum "Also, my opponent has ignored the conundrum I presented" It was a red herring. It had nothing to do with the debate. TANG "Even if logic is a reflection of God's nature, logic would still be created by God" Wha-? If logic is a part of who God is, then God can"t…
CP1. 1. If one's to deny that logic is absolute, truth can't be known. How can one affirm that *anything* is true? This would include the claim that "logic is not absolute." We wouldn't even know that a married bachelor is nonsense. Truth *can* be known, and it is therefore…
Against
Argument I - Logical Absolutes My opponent's statement is completely incorrect. While the facts of logic are fundamental, the laws of logic are man-made. The laws of logic are descriptions of the facts of logic. And there's the fallacy of equivocation again - my opponent is…
Argument I - Logical AbsolutesThe universe only exists of five things - time, space, matter, energy, and forces. Everything else, including logic, exists because of the mind, and does not exist apart from us. Logic and fundamental truths are not always the same thing. For…
1835.
Leftist movements are not rooted in postmodernism
For
If you look carefully, I am not saying that the whole of marxist theory is wrong, or evil, or anything of that sort. Much of the marxist critic of capitalism is relevant enough that it can be used to prevent the sort of economic disparity that would threaten the integrity of…
Indeed, in this video Dr. Peterson's reasoning when it comes to both marxism and postmodernism is sketchy, but I would argue that it is the view most prevalent within the anti-SJW crowd. Dr. Peterson himself rarely departs from it throughout his many videos, occasionally…
Against
& vice versa, if you look carefully, I am not saying that Cuba and Vietnam have entirely successful governmental systems: rather, that they have had some successes. I just thought you were being too readily dismissive of Marxist theory. And how we measure the success of a…
You, in this regard similar to me, have not read the hundreds upon thousands of pages of Marx's writings, some of which conflict others and some of which merely address a historical Fordism and Taylorism in industrialised Europe. To argue all Marxism as wrong is nothing but…
1836.
Ontological arguments justify belief in God
For
I don't particularily mind Con's extremely short responses, however, the effort each side puts into their posts will have a say when it comes down to it.To start, I will continue my deconstruction of the Negative case by further addressing Con's one and only argument. I might…
Thank you to Con for making an effort to participate in this debate.Going straight to defending the argumetns, I would first like to note that Con gave 1 argument against ontological arguments and it didn't refute Godels proof. Before I address that, we must first see why Con's…
Against
I see here that Pro ignored my main argument, that quality and quantity suffer the same problem. Pro states I committed the either/or fallacy. However you can see I didn't offer 2 solutions, but 3. I said the standard of great can be subjective. This is pretty much what Pro…
Pro gives a definition of great which is 'markedly superior in character or quality'. Pro doesn't answer my argument, but only pushes the question up. I understand we must compare something with other things to be considered great. I'm asking, whose comparison are we going by?…
1837.
An afterlife probably does not exist
For
Nature of negative/positive cases.Con has failed to sufficiently show why agnosticism must be 50/50. I freely admitted in the previous round that if one if looking for ultimate justification, one won't find it concerning the existence of an afterlife. However, that doesn't mean…
Deconstruction of the Con Case.Near death experiences.There are several competing theories for why near death experiences exist and why we seem to think they point to the existence of an afterlife. I was actually silently hoping Con wouldn't bring this up specifically because…
Against
Many thanks to my opponent. Hopefully this round wont be too bad, I have little time. Lets look first to the debate as a whole. Anyone reading can see that the majority of the clash centered around my case. This was exactly what I was hoping for because my opponent needed to…
My opponent still offers no positive arguments in support of the resolution, even admitting so, and at this point in the debate it is too late for him to do so. For this reason, he loses the debate automatically as he didnt meet his burden.His only response to this is this:…
1838.
Morality does not come purely from religion
For
For the first part of his argument, he states that religion forms culture. This cannot be because when we look at culture, there are many aspects that have very little to do with religion, especially in American culture. For example, law in the US is, largely although some laws…
Sorry, I spelled purely wrong in the title. I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate; it's a little different than some others on here. Note that I will be using culture interchangeably with forms or areas of cultural production. First: religion is a part of…
Against
My opponent reluctantly argues that religion does not shape culture but rather culture shapes religion, this cannot be so simply for the reason of human perspective. When dealing with the human perspective, we also deal with human comprehension which as we all know depends on…
Contention three: Religious clash vs. Moral view My opponent argues that religion is part of culture and its text are forms of culture; however, he filled to realize that this is actually the other way around. culture is based upon religion thus creating a situation in which…
1839.
God is best understood as information
For
truth can only be in the past, and the past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now future is the opposite of past, and now is the opposite of future and past my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of…
information is antimatter, like negative is antipositive true is matter, true is the opposite of false and truth, information thats not a difference to the belief, its still a religion.. i was a bit lazy eaerlier sorry, god is information, creator and creation, and creation…
Against
You are so off topic that I dont even think I need to submit an argument in this round
"information is antimatter"Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org..."true is the opposite of false and truth"How in the hell can true be the opposite of truth?Extend all arguments since everything else pro typed in that last round is incomprehensible.
1840.
War is never an acceptable solution to conflict
For
my dear opponent i am curious from reading your previous debate about neutrality one what your views are one war are this is my first time using this service and am therefore a novice but i am eager to start so i wolud be honoured if you would ingage in this debate with me
Against
Well sinc emy opponent didn't post anything there's not really much for me to do, so I'll just reinforce some of my previous points. Essentially, all you need to do for this is look at the past and see all of the times diplomacy failed and war was the only answer. From the…
Well you haven't really given me much to go on at this point, so I guess I'll start things off. The truth is that all I really need to do to prove you wrong is look at the past. WW2 is probably the best example as to how war is the answer. There was no way Hitler was going to…
1841.
It is better to believe in God regardless of whether He exists
For
I will argue that it is better to believe in the Christian God than none at all. Rules: No foul language and no help from the comments your family or friends and no bashing on my religion.
This was fun.
Against
I would like to apologize to my opponent for the many missed arguments I have been super busy because of the park test and National history day.
Hi. don't worry I will fallow your rules. I hope we can enjoy a fun fair argument. and please don't use the bible as evidence. using it does not prove anything nor will most except it as a usable source in most situations. I figured that round one was acceptance. okay your move.
1842.
The universe and God are one
For
God is all things in nature, in universe. It is in ourselves. http://www.oviaivo.net...
Against
Annihilation.
Exactly.
1843.
Science and religion can coexist
For
Thank you very much for bringing up this topic for debate. As a Christian that has a great interest in science I look forward to seeing your argument on why science and religion should not coexist. The way I see it is that religion and science are both searching for the same…
Well this ended up being a single point debate and never really got off the ground. For this I would like to apologize to all readers. I hope that we can see from our short arguments however that just because two things are different that it doesn't mean they can't coexist. As…
Against
Science and Religion are to completely different things, religion shouldn't be "mixed up" with science. The Bible and this "God" is just a tall tale, science is based on facts and real evidence. There is no evidence to prove God & The Bible, if you believe in that, that's your…
1844.
Morality can only truly exist without God
For
"You have the burden to prove that morality can exist without warrant! If I say that it is wrong to dance and you tell me it is not - who is right? We both appeal to the same thing - no-thing." This is true, and applies to every religious argument you can ever have, not…
My opponent says that morality only exists in the presence of God because God is a being that can warrant morality. My initial statement was that morality is most pure when it is performed without warrant. What makes God the authority on morality? And let's just assume for a…
Against
"My initial statement was that morality is most pure when it is performed without warrant." You have the burden to prove that morality can exist without warrant! If I say that it is wrong to dance and you tell me it is not – who is right? We both appeal to the same thing –…
The given definition of morality is "the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. " 1. Warrant for right and wrong My opponent suggests that without God true morality can exist. My opponent must explain the warrant he has for calling one choice…
1845.
God can morally do whatever Satan does because God defines morality
For
so morality is who has more power
hm
Against
Morality is a practice that is constantly changing, I don't think this is a debate let's not vote.
Yea I can do whatever I want and Satan isn't really a bad guy we play poker every third Wednesday. Source: I am God
1846.
Life lacks a satisfactory meaning under atheism
For
My opponent again insists that the purpose of species is to live on and evolve. However, this too is meaningless. The purpose of life cannot be to avoid death or to advance itself, just as the purpose of the NRA cannot be to keep the NRA alive or to grow the NRA. While it is…
------ My opponent claims that reproduction, or the production of life, can be the purpose of life. However, such a purpose is based in circular reasoning. The production of life cannot be a satisfactory purpose of life. My opponent claims that behavior that leads to…
Against
My opponent states that the purpose of the NRA is not to stay alive, which is true. It is intended to represent the views of gun owners and keep them in the public view. It can be argued though, that since the gun owner's voice is what keeps the NRA alive and provides it…
My opponent was correct in pointing out the circular logic of reproducing merely for the sake of production. But my opponent also failed to see the last part of my statement; "once humans stop mating, humans stop existing. " Our biological reasoning for living is simple; we…
1847.
Ultimately, not everyone needs to be equal
For
If a person was higher than other people, the other people would be upset and may try to get even. But they could fail in their attempts. Some people in the actual world seem to be higher than other people: kings of the past and present, Albert Einstein, and George Washington,…
You should disagree with me. That is the side of this debate you have opted to take. If you agreed with me or did not want to take the opposite side of my side, you shouldn't have accepted this challenge. Life can be unfair. It's possible that some people die in debt, socially…
Against
Pro says "If a person was higher than other people, the other people would be upset and may try to get even. But they could fail in their attempts." . Strawman; I never made such a point; my points were: 1. We ultimately live in what feels normal to us. 2. I challenge pro on…
We are socially uneven but here I'm arguing that we are "ultimately of equal happiness". "Ultimately" comes from the topic name, equal as synonym for "even" and happiness from pro's round 1 clarifications. I implore readers to try and relate to the following model: An…
1848.
There are things more important than reason
For
Now my opponent has made no attempt to claim any definitions or anything of the sort so my definition should be the ones that hold sway throughout the debate. I would also like to point out that even though I am Pro the burden of proof rests upon my opponent because they are…
Against
My arguments still stand.
=== RESPONSES === "I would also like to point out that even though I am Pro the burden of proof rests upon my opponent because they are trying to prove that the most important thing is reason, whereas I simply have to prove that reason is not the most important thing" >> My…
1849.
Divine foreknowledge compromises human free will
For
Does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will. Yes it does. You are not god, there for will now know if I will choose the cake or rotten fish. If you were god (in your manner) you would know that I am an Indian and am trying to grow a crop of corn.…
it is possible that the future is undetermined and God's *(omniscience does not include free choices.)* Webster's dictionary defines God as The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and "OMNISCIENT" originator and ruler of the universe. Webster's dictionary…
Against
============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= Pro claims "you are not god, there for will now know if I will choose the cake or rotten fish. If you were god (in your manner) you would know that I am an Indian and am trying to grow a crop…
============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= I don't think Pro understood the nature of this argument. What I've presented is a Frankfurt counterexample, which attempts to show that there is no inconsistency in thinking that both free…
1850.
Ontology necessitates the existence of God
For
I would like to write the reply, but my back hurts too much. I would for Double_R to also skip the round and the judges can vote with regards to the first four rounds. I realize however that Double_R would not want this, and in that case I concede. So it falls to Double_R what…
I want to start of by apologizing to Double_R, I was very tired when I wrote this and my tone was less than appropriate. I understand that this is a conduct violation, and once more my deepest apologies. I also thank my opponent for his round. I have decided to write this round…
Against
Very well, but this debate was long enough. I am more concerned with honest feedback then cheap victory points so the readers are encouraged to disregard round 5 in the voting.
Since Pro laid out his arguments in a structured format I will follow the same layout. Some of Pros points I either agree with or don't find necessary to address, so if I skip them then it can be considered a concession to the point.1. General Clarifications:(1.2) I do not…

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 37

How to use these debate topics

Run them live

More question collections