Philosophy Debates

 
Sort By:
Showing: 111 - 120

It is more ethical to kill five people rather than one person. (Please read description)

NatashaEgreeff
beachgirl67

Philisophical/Ethical debating. I am aware that although there may be no correct answer, as my debate is based purely on abstract thought, although I am intrigued to see what the thoughts/opinions will be. The topic of debate is as follows: I would like to start off by submitting a scenario. Suppose you are travelling down a track in a runaway trolley Cart, you are travelling at 60mph and the brakes are broken. At the end of the track in the distance you notice 5 workers going about t...

Post Voting Period
3 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

The Verification Principle is Sound

bsh1
Ajabi

PrefaceI do a lot of ethics debates and things of that nature, but I would like to discuss a topic that is perhaps a little more esoteric and philosophical. To accept this debate, you must've already complete 2 debates. The ELO voting floor on this debate has been set at 2,000.Full TopicThe Verification Principle is SoundTermsSound - free from error, illogic, a...

Post Voting Period
61 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

1000 character debate: Trolley Problem

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
FourTrouble

Resolution: If a trolley is headed towards five people tied to a track and you are near a switch and can switch the trolley onto a different track where one person is tied to the track, you ought not switch.It is assumed that the people the trolley hits will definitely die. Practical considerations will not figure into this.Nor will Kritiks. For instance arguing that 'ought' is entirely subjective, thus this resolution has no right or wrong ans...

Post Voting Period
108 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

Can the concept of hope be perceived on an entirely rational basis?

MrTommyBeer
MIguelVal

Do you think we can think of hope in an entirely rational way? Focusing on religion in particular as a source of hope (for the faithful individual), I'm challenging the atheist, or for any other non-believer. Do you believe that one can logically reason him/herself into believing there is hope for the future? I'd love to read anything you have that you think may be relevant. Stephen Fry quoted: "You can't reason yourself back into cheerfulness any more than you can reason yourself into an ext...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

does absolute morality exist?

EppurSiMuove
Philocat

I have been thinking about this topic for a long time.I wonder if people have something about innate morality.Please don't say something like that yes absolutely people have an innate morality thanks to god!I don't want to constrain this topic as a religion discussion.This is not about god.This is about people and If we answer this question,We may create better law rules,better perspectives and better social connections.Thanks for answers :)...

Post Voting Period
4 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Zaradi
That1User

The resolution is Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.This is intended to be an LD debate. If you do not intend to debate it as if it were such a thing, or are unfamiliar with the technicalities and terminology of LD debate, please refrain from accepting. All types of case structures are acceptable. The round structure will break down like this:Round One: Neg presents debate, Aff posts ca...

Post Voting Period
30 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

People are predisposed to be followers by nature.

a-little-in-the-middle
thenewkid

Hello! I am new to debating on this website and have been reading through many fantastic debates. This particular topic is one I have been intrigued to debate. There are many opinions out there that humans by nature were born to lead. I am on the contending end as I believe that we as individuals are predisposed to be followers. My opponent should be arguing the contrary. I am not choosy about how my debates are conducted....all I ask for is.... a) Please allow round one to be for acc...

Post Voting Period
0 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

Not following the set moral standard

MetaForge
bsh1

Okay, So my argument is that people don't have to follow set morals. Reason one: Religious morals mean nothing if you do not believe in that/those god/s. Reason two: Not being subjected to a religion gives you a choice in your morals Therefore, people have a choice to believe in morals or not. example, if I decided I wanted to steal money from a bank (and I could), most people would say that is bad. Why? Because god said it was bad. Okay, ask atheists and they would say because people ar...

Post Voting Period
3 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

Abortion is murder

werdna1999
Joss_Whedon

When a women has an abortion, she is removing only a clump of cells from her body ( I am opposed abortion after 6 months ). Should the government force her to birth what is technically a parasite in her body? Arguing that a fetus is a human and should receive basic human rights is a viable reason for not aborting, yet if you do believe that a fetus is a human, and thus with human rights, a fetus does not have the right to live inside another organism (just as any other human), nor does the fetus...

Post Voting Period
8 Comments
Updated 3 Weeks Ago

Resolved: Everything is Debatable

TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Zaradi

This should be impossible to accept, if anyone somehow does you forfeit the round. I dont know, let's see where this one goes. BOP is shared.comment if you want to play DEFINITIONS: they're debatable...

Post Voting Period
22 Comments
Updated 4 Weeks Ago