Does God exist ?
Definition of God - Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ACCEPTING DEBATE BURDEN OF PROOF Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry I as the CON have to try and prove that God probably doesn't exist or at the very least that Gods non existence is more likely that its existence. My opponent as the PRO will try and prove that God probably does exist, or at the very least that Gods existenc...
The 7 Deadly Sins, if not portrayed in excess, are essential.
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vani...
It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm
Rational: coherence with logic.
Atomic Law of Truth(Must be accepted!): Truth=Truth 1=1 (a entity itself is itself)
Acceptence:
-No semantic games.
-the most likely interpretation of opponent is to be respected.
-the most clear and distinct definitions are t...
There is absolute truth
I was thinking we could copy and paste the first two rounds and start from the same point.
Debate ethics:
-straw men are to be taken seriously.
-No semantic games. Semantics for clarification only
-a response must assume what most likely was meant by the speaker.
-refutation must quote the claim being refuted.
Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical
Personally, I am deeply invested in this issue. One day, I hope to make a future career off related medical practices, and as of right now, I cannot fathom how it could be unethical. Truth be told, I've always wanted to live happily ever after. Here's some background for the debate: Within contemporary debates on the future of human evolution, two very different perspectives have emerged on the developing biomedical and biotechnological transformations of the living world: the bioconserva...
no one can know/prove anything 100%
i argue that no one can know for certain whether or not an alleged "proof" of theirs is valid because there is a potential for their own human error.
secondly, an alleged proof must pass certain criteria to be confirmed as a valid and 100% conclusive proof. but how can we know that these criteria cant potentially yield a falsehood? the only way to prove otherwise w...
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism
moral nihilists claim that nothing is moral or immoral. subjective moralists often disagree by saying something along the lines of "objective morality doesnt exist, but things can be subjectively moral or immoral". they generally define subjective immorality as some sorts of harmful actions that people might subjectively dislike. guess what? moral nihilists and even objective moralists also believe there are "harmful actions that people might subjectively dislike". the difference is that obj...
Sources have no place in a Philosophical Debate other than to define terms and give counterexamples.
Clarification of Resolution: "or" is meant in the mathematical sense, meaning that sources are reasonable to use in philosophical debate when either they are used to define terms or used to provide counterexamples, or both.
Any honest debater is justified in being concerned about plagiarism. &nbs...
Ignorance is Bliss
I do put effort into these debates, after all, and it would be most disappointing if after my work nobody thought this debate worth their time.
MIG tourney R3: Vigilantism is Justified when the U.S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law
This will be for Round 3 of the Man-is-good's tournament, officially.
http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/21768/
The purpose of this debate will be to discuss/debate a philosophical difference of belief, in determining whether vigilantism is justified in the United States or not, Ultimately, this will be the vote...