Hit me with your best debate topics, looking for unique/thought-provoking ones, may debate some of the resolutions.
Debate Topics
Posts
Total:
36
-->
@That1User
- Does the real world need superheroes?
- Which movie is better in terms of characters and plot, Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away?
- Is it more likely that God exists, than not?
- Should we encourage flat tax in the US?
- Is it useless to try to prevent global warming?
- The Iraqi war was regrettable for the US to participate in.
- Trump is one of the top 5 worst US presidents ever.
- There is no better universal health care plan than ACP Outlines Plan for Universal Health Care.
Here's some I find intriguing. If you can't tell, I'm a pretty PF oriented debater.
- Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production.
- Resolved: The United States federal government should prioritize reducing the federal debt over promoting economic growth.
- Resolved: The United States should end its economic sanctions against Venezuela.
- Resolved: The European Union should join the Belt and Road Initiative.
- Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.
- Resolved: The United States federal government should impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry.
- Resolved: The United States ought to replace the Electoral College with a direct national popular vote.
- Resolved: The United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income.
- Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms.
- Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
- Resolved: The US ought to increase domestic climate change regulations.
-->
@MisterChris
- Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production. (Neutral, nuclear energy is good but the extraction of uranium is exploitative)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should prioritize reducing the federal debt over promoting economic growth. (Opposed, especially now)
- Resolved: The United States should end its economic sanctions against Venezuela. (Yes, economic sancations kill innocents, especially those who urgently need medicine)
- Resolved: The European Union should join the Belt and Road Initiative. (No, unless the EU wants to be indebted to China)
- Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council. (China will veto this)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should impose price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. (Absolutely)
- Resolved: The United States ought to replace the Electoral College with a direct national popular vote. (The NPVIC ought to be enacted)
- Resolved: The United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income. (Lean yes)
- Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms. (Neutral)
- Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression. (Yes)
- Resolved: The US ought to increase domestic climate change regulations. (Yes)
-->
@seldiora
- Does the real world need superheroes? (No, we need more heroes)
- Which movie is better in terms of characters and plot, Princess Mononoke or Spirited Away? (Need to see Princess Mononoke)
- Is it more likely that God exists, than not? (Yes)
- Should we encourage flat tax in the US? (No, increases poverty)
- Is it useless to try to prevent global warming? (At this point, maybe, not necessarily useless rn tho, there's still a slight chance to reverse it)
- The Iraqi war was regrettable for the US to participate in. (Who disagrees with this?)
- Trump is one of the top 5 worst US presidents ever. (Neutral)
- There is no better universal health care plan than ACP Outlines Plan for Universal Health Care. (It looks great, need to look into alternatives to see if it's the best plan)
-->
@That1User
There are lots of topics that I just love to debate, though they're usually political or scientific. I'm having trouble thinking of some of my absolute favorites from my live debate days, so I skimmed my DDO debates.
The definition of "life" should be inclusive of viruses.
Assisted suicide should be legal.
The United States should use private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.
U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs.
Let anyone work anywhere.
The US should ban hydraulic fracking.
The use of antibiotics by health care professionals should be restricted.
This house would allow performance enhancing drugs in professional sports.
This house would allow consensual necrophilia. (I just kinda love this - it shouldn't work, but it does)
Some vaccines should be mandatory.
The "RNA World" theory of abiogenesis is currently the most likely explanation for the beginnings of life.
The definition of "life" should be inclusive of viruses.
I remember reading that antibiotics don't work because viruses are nonliving, and you can't kill a virus, I'd be willing to explore this further, think a case can be made that viruses are living but it will be semi-hard to prove
The use of antibiotics by health care professionals should be restricted.
The overuse of antibiotics causes bacterial immunity leading to stronger more resistant diseases, we're definately overmedicated, I agree with the purpose and theory of restricting them, but this would be a pratical nightmare to implement
Let anyone work anywhere.
Yes
This house would allow consensual necrophilia. (I just kinda love this - it shouldn't work, but it does)
"Please kill me and fuck my dead body"
Some vaccines should be mandatory.
Which ones?
The "RNA World" theory of abiogenesis is currently the most likely explanation for the beginnings of life.
Never heard of this, does this mean life arose out of pre-encoded RNA?
-->
@That1User
I remember reading that antibiotics don't work because viruses are nonliving, and you can't kill a virus, I'd be willing to explore this further, think a case can be made that viruses are living but it will be semi-hard to prove
The term itself, antibiotic, definitely screams "anti-life," but most antibiotics are organism-specific. That being said, there isn't an antibiotic that works against viruses. I would argue that they're a distinct form of life from cellular life, but still life.
The overuse of antibiotics causes bacterial immunity leading to stronger more resistant diseases, we're definately overmedicated, I agree with the purpose and theory of restricting them, but this would be a pratical nightmare to implement
Part of the reason I like this debate is that it's got good arguments for both sides. I'd love to debate it one of these days. Only got to start one with bsh1, but he couldn't continue past the first round. Never came back to it.
"Please kill me and fuck my dead body"
More like "here's a contract for what you can do to me after I die," but hey, not knocking your quote.
Which ones?
Strongest arguments for MMR and TDaP, weaker ones for flu and COVID-19, still weaker for HPV, but I've argued for many of these before. Personally wouldn't want too many, but at least the first two.
Never heard of this, does this mean life arose out of pre-encoded RNA?
The basic idea is that life was initially composed solely or largely of RNA. There are actual subviral and non-viral entities that are solely RNA, so it's not beyond reason. RNA is also highly versatile, and can behave like a protein in some instances. In practice, this would have meant that randomly assembling RNA sequences eventually stumbled upon self-replication and went from there.
-->
@whiteflame
U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs.
Ah, but isn't the expressed purpose of the US militia, composed of the People, to be a threat to the government elite? It is one of many checks and balances intentionally included in the formulation of the US government.
looking for unique/thought-provoking ones, may debate some of the resolutions.
The Singularity of technological development as it is usually depicted by people (a hypothetical point in time at which sudden technological growth occurs literally overnight or over the course of mere weeks, resulting in previously unforeseeable changes to human civilization.) is likely to happen at some point in the future. NOT a debate about whether this would be a good thing, just whether it is likely to occur.
-->
@MisterChris
I suppose that's true, though whether that's actually beneficial is a different question. My personal perspective is that there was a time and place for militia groups to be important, both for the security of individual states and for checking abuses of power. At this stage, I'm not so sure that they effectively do either, and in the event that they do perform the latter function, I think the cost of that check (essentially creating smaller powers that can and do abuse authority generated by shows of force) may be bigger than the gain. Still, even without that discussion, the debate I had with bsh1 on this topic was my all-time favorite online debate.
-->
@whiteflame
Fair enough. I'm just saying that those who had thought up the policy probably did it intentionally, knowing that militias would be a constant threat to the government elite. So in that sense, it is better to debate whether it is beneficial like you said.
-->
@MisterChris
I can see that, and it certainly seems worth debating, especially these days.
-->
@That1User
I'm perfectly happy to attack any of the following resolutions,
Free will is an incoherent concept.
Morality is indisputable.
Science is not objective.
We can give it a go on the forums or in the debate section.
The basic idea is that life was initially composed solely or largely of RNA. There are actual subviral and non-viral entities that are solely RNA, so it's not beyond reason. RNA is also highly versatile, and can behave like a protein in some instances. In practice, this would have meant that randomly assembling RNA sequences eventually stumbled upon self-replication and went from there.
I find this insanely interesting that life potentially emerged as random sequences of self-replicating RNA, makes sense for life to emerge from it since RNA is in all living cells, does this posulate that DNA emerged with RNA? RNA's high versatility acting like and commanding protein furthers this ambiogensis.
More like "here's a contract for what you can do to me after I die," but hey, not knocking your quote.
Surprisingly both of these quotes are something my ex would say
MMR and TDaP
These two are effective against multiple life threatening diseases, it's rational to support them
That being said, there isn't an antibiotic that works against viruses. I would argue that they're a distinct form of life from cellular life, but still life.
Think I'd consider them life too
Part of the reason I like this debate is that it's got good arguments for both sides. I'd love to debate it one of these days. Only got to start one with bsh1, but he couldn't continue past the first round. Never came back to it.
We can do this debate, sounds compelling, needs to be finished, I'm willing to be pro here
-->
@whiteflame
The United States should use private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.
And we all know how great that worked out for the Romans.
-->
@3RU7AL
I was opposed as well.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Singularity of technological development as it is usually depicted by people (a hypothetical point in time at which sudden technological growth occurs literally overnight or over the course of mere weeks, resulting in previously unforeseeable changes to human civilization.) is likely to happen at some point in the future. NOT a debate about whether this would be a good thing, just whether it is likely to occur.
I think this will be done within one year, probably over vital months of rapid development, especially on the iniation or ending of something significant like WWIII. I don't doubt the concept itself but the time frame of development.
-->
@That1User
- Does the real world need superheroes? (No, we need more heroes)
The very concept of "hero" is a toxic myth.
-->
@That1User
Wanna debate that then? I would be con.
-->
@MisterChris
Resolved: The United States should increase its use of nuclear energy for commercial energy production.
EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) [03]
EROEI 106:1 - Nuclear
EROEI 51:1 - Wind
EROEI 50:1 - Hydroelectric
EROEI 31:1 - Coal
EROEI 28:1 - Natural Gas
EROEI 21:1 - Parabolic Solar
EROEI 7:1 - Photovoltaic
EROEI 3.5:1 - Biogas
EROEI 1:1 - Ethanol
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will is an incoherent concept.Morality is indisputable.Science is not objective.
Depends what you mean by incoherent, free will doesn't make sense as an action or a concept to believe in? I don't believe in free will but I see why it's believed in
I think morality is disputable
Science is prone to bias/subjectivity, it's not completely objective but it's close
-->
@That1User
Depends what you mean by incoherent, free will doesn't make sense as an action or a concept to believe in?
Logically incoherent. The only way to violate cause-and-effect is by pure randomness (and a random event is incompatible with the concept of a "willed" event).
I don't believe in free will but I see why it's believed in
Free-will is properly described as an emotion.
-->
@That1User
I think morality is disputable
The definition of morality requires a code of behavior based on PRINCIPLES.
The definition of PRINCIPLES requires a set of rules based on TRUTH.
The definition of TRUTH requires accordance with FACT.
And FACT must be indisputable.
Therefore, morality must necessarily be indisputable.
-->
@That1User
I find this insanely interesting that life potentially emerged as random sequences of self-replicating RNA, makes sense for life to emerge from it since RNA is in all living cells, does this posulate that DNA emerged with RNA? RNA's high versatility acting like and commanding protein furthers this ambiogensis.
I'm really intrigued by it as well. My PhD research focused on one of those non-viral RNAs, and I just find them endlessly fascinating. RNA is highly susceptible to heat and all kinds of chemistries, so it doesn't survive well in the world, which might be the reason why DNA emerged a little further down the line. Essentially, I think life started off as pretty stable double-stranded RNA, but evolved DNA to further stabilize, increase their genetic information and work with available proteins like histones to further condense their genetic information.
Surprisingly both of these quotes are something my ex would say
Heh, heh, got her!
These two are effective against multiple life threatening diseases, it's rational to support them
They're the most obvious, partly for that reason and partly because Measles and Pertussis can cause a lot of problems unchecked. Mumps and Rubella aren't that big of a deal, and Diptheria and Tetanus can cause problems, but the former is largely controllable and the latter doesn't spread by air.
Think I'd consider them life too
Part of the reason I like the debate is that there's good arguments to be had on both sides, but I personally find the definition of life to be too constricting. In many ways, we define life by similarity to humans, hence our early uncertainties regarding bacteria and other microbes. Now, we generally seem to define life as being membrane-bound and having their own internal activities, and even that is kind of off when it comes to viruses, because some of them meet that threshold. There are massive viruses that are actually directly infected by other viruses. It's crazy.
We can do this debate, sounds compelling, needs to be finished, I'm willing to be pro here
Be happy to do it most any time. I'd probably personally lean in the same direction, but I'm happy to take on Con with this. That's what I was doing against Bsh1 before it got cancelled.
-->
@That1User
Science is prone to bias/subjectivity, it's not completely objective but it's close
Ideal or nearly ideal data collection can produce a "less-biased" data-set.
HOWevER, all data is SAMPLE-BIASED.
And since the definition of "objective" explicitly includes the qualifier "not-biased", "pure-objectivity" is incompatible with human minds.
FURTHERMORE,
Even iff we magically produced "objective" data, the CONCLUSIONS drawn from that data would not and could not ever be considered "objective conclusions".
Per Hume's Guillotine (you can never logically bridge the gap between an "IS" and an "OUGHT").
-->
@3RU7AL
The definition of PRINCIPLES requires a set of rules based on TRUTH.
No, it doesn't. One of the definitions of principle does define it as you say, but the one that applies to morality? No, you're cherry-picking your definition here.
Principle - "Morally correct behavior and attitudes."
-->
@3RU7AL
The distinction is that science is practically objective, it's one of if not the most objective pathways to determining truth, it isn't a set of facts per se, its a pathway to gathering them. And no it isn't objective in that regard, but in others, it is, such as, "true without minds" etcetera, my point is it is either objective or practically objective depending on how you define objective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Morally correct behavior and attitudes."
This seems impractically vague.
It also leads to some obviously problematic circular reasoning.
(sammy) What is "moral"?
(sid) "Moral" is behavior based on "principle".
(sammy) What is "principle"?
(sid) "Principle" is "morally correct behavior and attitudes".
(sammy) So, "moral" is "morally correct behavior and attitudes"?
(sid) Yep.
(sammy) Ok, so, how do you know, in practical, real-world terms, exactly what "morally correct behavior and attitudes" entails?
(sid) Please refer to my definition of "principle". [**]
-->
@Theweakeredge
And no it isn't objective in that regard, but in others, it is, such as, "true without minds" etcetera,
What the heck do you mean when you say, "true without minds"?