Total debates: 269
No description has been provided
I shall be arguing for presentism. I shall define it as the view in which the only reality that exists now is present reality when it comes to non-abstract or non-imaginary existence. The present moment is all that is concrete.
No description has been provided
Idealism: Idealism is the belief that we should adopt moral principles, even if they have negative effects on our lives Pragmatism: Pragmatism, on the other hand, is a rejection of idealism. If the Idealist's principles get in the way, the Pragmatist does whatever is deemed as practical, with no concerns for morality. Society:the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
I don't want Oromagi to be here.
No description has been provided
My opponent is to provide the logical structure (just premises and form, no defence) of the ontological argument they want to defend in round 1. Structure: Round 1: Pro Waives, Con States the argument. Round 2: Arguments & rebuttals Round 3: Arguments & rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and summing up (no new arguments)
No description has been provided
Intended for fauxlaw but anyone who agrees with him may accept. Almost everything is up for change: word count, number of rounds, etc.
Enter this debate at will. RM and Fauxlaw may be interested in this topic.
If there are any parameters on the debate you'd like to change before accepting this debate (character count, number of rounds, etc.) just tell me.
Enter this debate at will. Sigmaphil is discouraged to enter this debate since he did last time.
I will be arguing that my personal non-theistic stance can also reject Atheism.
Hello everyone! I have heard and seen a nonstop flow of political rhetoric from both main U.S parties (Democratic and Republican). Anyhow, I wish to delve into and hopefully debunk what I find to be bad ideas from both sides of the aisle. In this second installment (see the border wall debate) I wish to switch party lines and take on federal government benefits (including health care and welfare) that many mainstream Democrats defend.
I will be arguing for Taoism, and my opponent will be arguing for Confucianism. Both will be arguing which school of thought is more beneficial to humanity in general.
’If’ is not utilitarian because it only acknowledges what is currently not true.
Does a good, perfect person struggle with evil? I will define "perfection" within the scope of this debate. It is: living a perfect life is living a life without error of any kind under any circumstance. It is always making correct choices when faced with every circumstance. Impossible to achieve? Probably. But, if even a perfect person by this definition still struggles with evil, is there any doubt that the rest of us do?
"IF" is the most useless word in any language because it acknowledges only that which is currently not true.
Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, that is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day. DO NOT join if you have an agnostic view of God/do not have evidence for the position that God does not exist. To Truth! -logicae
Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, that is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day. DO NOT join if you have an agnostic view of God/do not have evidence for the position that God does not exist. I have done these debates on debate.org, but It seems that site is plagued by trolls lately. To Truth! -logicae
Imagine that you go to vote and some, jerk stops you and says, hey you aren't voting right go home, like a bogus literacy test, what sort of f*&cking retard violates basic human rights by telling people how they can vote?
Hello everyone! I have heard and seen a nonstop flow of political rhetoric from both main u.s parties (democratic and republican). Anyhow, I wish to delve into and hopefully debunk what I find to be bad ideas from both sides of the aisle. Anyone who has strong opinions on the matter is welcome to join, just be sure to have well developed arguments to assist your side (In other words don't be like most American voters ;).
We must consider the fact that the universe is a simulation, and if it is a simulation, in my opinion it is better to have significant influence on society than it is to be a "good person". It would be better to be a serial killer who becomes famous than a person who regularly attends church, donates large amounts of money to charity and is loved by everyone around her.
I will be arguing pro hedonism. You will be arguing con hedonism by showing an alternative philosophy to be better.
Hawaiian pizza is literally the best kind.
Full Resolution: Persons recently painted with green pigment foam must stand around all odd-numbered SCPs at least two hours a day.
This is not a debate about whether you have a right to won a gun, you don't , all rights are made up , the us constitution was made up, and only gave the states the right to form militias
Murica #ABOVE AVERAGE
Sometimes its better to learn from a failure or a mistake than to sit by and be safe and learn nothing
Prove that 0.999... (repeating to infinity) isn't equal to 1.
No description has been provided
Making it again
No description has been provided
Capitalism is a great system IF it is regulated properly
If we get rid of most of the world s humans the global warming problem is solved
what is god... is he a system that created us... is he a force... a person...
Laws are not perfect if you make the drinking age 18 15 year olds will find a way to drink if you make it 21 18 year olds will sneak a drink many restrictions are onerous because they put a limit on a persona freedom but if you make something illegal you might not eliminate it but you will reduce it
Successes make a person over confident failure can either demoralize you or make you more determined, if you make a mistake and learn from it so you wont do it again making the mistake is the most valuable thing to you
In this debate I will be arguing that is is probable that God (as defined by classical theism) exists.
No description has been provided
Israel doesn't have to be Populated by Saints to justify its existence just a brave and competent army
The founding fathers warned of foreign entanglements and yet? here we are like an octopus all over the world
Many people are happy with what they have, which may be little or nothing while other with great money and power are deeply unhappy
No description has been provided