Resolved: It is probable that God exists.
1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
4. Closing arguments/clash
Can a Scientist give a rational argument as to Intelligent Design that the majority of other scientists can and should agree with? As an opening bid, the Proponent will take the Pro on this topic and the Con will make the case against Intelligent Design having any relevance to the Scientific Community. RULES: This will be a Formal Debate with Formal Debate Rules and the Rules of this site, with this one exception. The Opponent shall go first and shall contribute to the actual definitions use...
For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity.
"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).
- Never use evidence other than from Darwin's theory of evolution or any LOGICAL hypothetical past state of animals or living beings in general. In other words, no one should deserve the sources vote because this should be purely original work.
- Never, ever contradict yourself. If any one of us is proven to have self contra...
Post Voting PeriodUpdated 6 Months Ago
The full proposition is as follows: "Morality is objective."
As Pro, I will be arguing that morality is objective. As con, my opponent will be arguing that morality is subjective. That means the burden of proof will be on both of us.
Objective: independent of personal opinion. If something is objectively morally good, then it is morally good no matter how many people think otherwise.
Christian God - Omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent personal creator of the universe.
Reasonable non-belief - non-belief in Christianity which is largely based on sincere and rational thought, which is amenable to reason.
The ANB, simply put, is the problem that non-belief causes for the God described, assuming of course that...
Pro will argue for the soundness of the cosmological argument from contingency, whereas Con will attempt to show why the argument is either invalid or not sound. The burden of proof will be on Pro to establish and defend a positive argument for the soundness of the argument while Con must only show why Pro's argument is false.
God will be defined as a necessary being or agent, one t...
What ho, what ho! The age old philosophical question brought up once again! Round 1 will be for acceptance. If you accept the debate, you are arguing that the tree DOES make a sound. I will argue that it does not....
I will go ahead and lead off with my argument.
I will put my argument in the form of a syllogism and then support my premises with evidence.
Premise 1: From fertilization, the preborn are biological members of humanity.
Premise 2: All members of humanity are intrinsically valuable based on the kind of thing they are, humans....
Education is one of the most important things about developing as a person because it shapes how we perceive the world. Without education we are no better than animals acting purely on instinct to get through life. With education are mind develops and becomes very much part of the person we develop into. This is evident in that we have to be literate to fill out job applications but even more broader than that we have to be taut language so that we can express ourselves on an intellectual level...