 |
TheSkeptic's Debates
  |
Some remotely interesting philosophical issue.
Pretty simple, I hope I can continue getting away with this lazy format. Round 1 consists of my introduction and my opponent listing at least 3 philosophical issues to debate. If desired, they can choose which side of the debate I am on (me being PRO is merely wording, as double negatives obviously exist). The more topics the better. Fingers crossed for an enjoyable debate....
Evolution vs creationism /Why is evolution taught in school but creation not?
Evolution is taught in school and creation is frowned upon but there are just as many flaws in evolution as there are in creation....
Abortion is morally permissible
This first round serves as an introduction, definitions, and parameters. My opponent can decide to start his arguments in his first round, or wait for subsequent rounds.
Abortion will refer to the intentional termination of a human pregnancy. Furthermore, I will focus on first trimester abortions exclusively as the vast majority of abortions are of such. The issue of later abortions get more complicated due to...
That allowing terminally ill patients to die when and how they choose is justified
For Merda's Tournament The first round is for acceptance simply to get this debate going If my opponent wishes he can make definitions and present a case. Rules: 1 no semantics 2 if you want you can present a philosophy or simply use philosophical logic (whatever that means). 3 each one of us has to present a case and rebut/refute the others. 4 have fun (or not)...
Rawslian theory is a justified form of government.
Sorry for the long delay, I had a lot of personal issues. Anyway, this is the first round for Freeman's tournament and an anticipated debate between me and my opponent. It's also been awhile since Ive debated - hopefully it's an enjoyable experience. I've made it 4 rounds since my plan was that Round 1 would be moreso of an introduction, or further stipulations/modifications that may be added. Here I want to define Rawlsian theory, make some clarifications, and invite my opponent to the sa...
Mind Over Matter? (2)
TheSkeptic wanted to debate this so here it is: ========= Introduction ========= This debate will be on the age-old clash in philosophy of mind over the issue of whether or not there is an immaterial element to, but not limited to, persons. This immaterial element is attributed to the mind or the soul. Of course, the question is whether or not this immaterial element even exists and that is what we are here to debate. To put it another way - is there more to persons than their mate...
In Defense Of Practical Moral Skepticism
It's been a while since my last debate, so I figure I'll start a debate in response to several forum threads I've posted in (concerning ethical issues). My position and burden is to demonstrate that practical moral skepticism is a sound stance that would probably lead one to readily reconsider the nature of ethics, though obviously I'm interested only in proving the former goal. My opponent can deny my position in any way possible, except semantics and other foolery. Practical moral skepticis...
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.
I thank Cerebral Narcissist for accepting this debate challenge - it's been a while since my last debate, so I've been eager for another one. My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent. From here on out, I will refer to this position as meta-ethical relativism, and to be more precisely it's abbreviated form MMR. The following is a definition of MMR[1]: "The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not...
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time
The argument- Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time Leadership has been defined many ways but for the basis of this argument I find this one most all encompassing, leadership is "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task." (1). If we use this definition we see where Hitler obviously excels in this category, he is one of the greatest orators of his day, and had the German people eating out of his hand...
America's military is the greatest in the world.
To answer your comment in http://www.debate.org/debate/11890/ why yes, TheSkeptic, I would. ************************************************************** America's military might is by no means small, it has such a variety of armed and unarmed forces supporting it that it can adapt to most situations and handle them effectively, what that statement does not encompass, however, is the fact that the enemy would be trying to do precisely the same thing. I intend to prove two points:...