The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!
My opponent takes the position that the Ontological Argument is proof for the existence of God and assumes the burden of proof. I will assume the Con position. Rounds will work as follows: R1. Acceptance and state Ontological Argument. R2. Arguments and rebuttals. R3. Arguments and rebuttals. R4. Rebuttals and conclusion....
Dose God Exist
I have broken down my argument into three parts. One Improbability, two Stupid design, three the problome of evil. Number one improbability: There is no evidience for God, one could give you alot of semi evidence such as the cosmogical argument but there is no physical evidence. Not only is there no evidence for God but it is highly improbable that such a being exists. Think about it someone that is so complex that he can hear all of our prayres at once and read our thoughts ect, has to be mu...
Radiometric Dating is not reliable
Pro should start on the first round and only post a conclusion in the last round.
The "conclusion" for this debate is how you would vote if you were a reader.
Definitions:
"Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually bas...
The Okoboji debate team, has a mean coach amd mean debators
Many debtors on their team are rude and arrogant, and their coach was a jerk when his team lost in octos against Heelan....
I will not contradict myself
I will not contradict myself on matters of politics, accepting this the Con accepts only political contradictions qualify, as such no semantics can be played such as interchangeably using Libertarian and libertarian, however claiming to be one and then contradicting that by claim very un-libertarianistic claims(such as supporting drug war AND nationalized healthcare)...
does science make babies gay?
yes science is an anti religious act there for it makes babies gay...
This statement is false: Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chi
I will be attempting to show that the statement, "Found in the cirriculum of the first US Public Schools, 1647... "...one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures."", contained in medic0506's forum signature is factually incorrect. As he has refused to admit to this in the forums. Well either he can refuse this debate, admiting that he keeps that there knowing it is not the truth, or he can debate me on it. Well medic? I'v been on this site f...
Is abortion morally justified and should it be legal?
1. No semantics.
2. Nothing about religion or God will be discussed
3. Pro in Round 1 will just say they're accepting the debate and rules.
4. Arguments will start in round 2.
Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!
If you disagree with my definition. do not try to debate it in comments. Do not try to ppose it in round 1. Just do not accept the debate.
Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence.
Thank you to my opponent. You shall debate all beliefs other than neutral agnosticism. That is end of it all. Do the hulahoop!!!!!!!!...
Man Can't Know Theistic Truths
My first debate will be a quick one since it's more of a question. My only argument is this, 1) If God is all knowing, then only he can know of himself 2) Mankind are not all knowing 3) Therefore, Man can't know theistic truths Support for 1: In order to know anything about a being which knows all, we must be within that very same epistemic position, but if no other being shares such a position with God, then ultimately God is unknowable. Support for 2: Humans stand in very l...