It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.
Today I will be defending the proposition that it is morally wrong for humans to eat animals, and that people are unjustified in causing suffering and death to other sentient beings for reasons of pleasure, satisfaction, or amusement....
God exists
Definitions God: An entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and the cause of the universe. Universe: all and only that which exists (in this case, synonymous with reality). Cause: Something that brings about an effect or result First round is for acceptance only....
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person. consider a deserted island hypothetical or maybe stranded in the desert w no end in clear site, or something like that. the normal rules of not being able to kill others at this point no longer applies....
killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)
H. habilis H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. georgicus H. ergaster H. antecessor H. cepranensis H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. rhodesiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. floresiensis...
killing these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)
H. habilis H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. georgicus H. ergaster H. antecessor H. cepranensis H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. rhodesiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. floresiensis...
being mixed race makes u immune to racial stupidity
Mixed race people are immune to racial ignorance...
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist. better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force....
J.J Rousseau's View of the State of Nature Is Superior to That of Hobbes
This debate will be about whose view of the State of Nature is better, Hobbes or Rousseau. I affirm that Rousseau's is superior. If you do not know the ins and outs of each of these positions please DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE. Since this is a debate and not a political philosophy lecture we will not cover the topics in much depth outside of the purview of the debate. I trust my opponent knows these topics well.First Round - AcceptanceSecond Rou...
Life on earth has no intrinsic value.
The assumptions for this argument: 1. There is no afterlife. 2. Human beings are headed toward extinction either through self-inflicted or natural catastrophe....
A human Soul exists
Hey everyone, First round is for acceptance. A soul is defined as: "The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being, regarded as immortal" [1] BOP will be on me. This debate is impossible to accept; if you want to debate, leave a comment :) Enjoy! [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/soul...