Total debates: 296
Calm debate concerning the nature of reality.
| Homosexuality Is Not Moral | Wagyu's: Pro | Contender: Con |
Trying to flesh out ideas in Kantian Ethics. A debate should help me structure my thoughts.
No description has been provided
Instigator Position: Affirmative (Pro) "Gender is not a binary" Contender Position: Negative (Con) "Gender is a binary" BoP is shared
No description has been provided
Come in. The full description is what you are reading.
No description has been provided
Utilitarianism is a moral system, which I will defend in the debate.
4 rounds - 30,000 character limit : Theweakeredge: "Objective morality is not real" Let's try this one again, shall we?
No Covid conspiracy theory allowed either for or against flat earth theory.
No description has been provided
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument for the existence of God.
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
No description has been provided
Morality - most topically defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" Objective - the best summation by Merriam Webster I found would be " having reality independent of the mind" Perhaps humanity would run wild without it. Perhaps nothing could function without it. But that doesn't change the question. Does it exist? Yes? Well then, come on down and convince me and any of my fellows who agree.
Topic: Is abortion ethical? I will be taking the PRO position, as in, "Abortion is ethical". This is to kind of follow up the pattern of my other two debates, I look forward to any acceptees.
No description has been provided
The Kalam Cosmetological Argument is an argument for the existence of of God
No description has been provided
This is meant to serve as a short demo debate so I can assess the potential of a full debate later on.
I will be supporting the position that God is not necessary for objective morality, while my opponent will be supporting the position that God is necessary for objective morality.
No description has been provided
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?